22 ms·

> The source, the entire cause of this mess, was to have the 737 MAX not be a new type. If the "fix" is to not do that, then the 737 MAX is not fixable because

> The source, the entire cause of this mess, was to have the 737 MAX not be a new type. If the "fix" is to not do that, then the 737 MAX is not fixable because it loses the entire reason for its existence. There are a ton of existing 737 MAX, and Boeing's production lines are all geared up to produce more. The MCAS etc are there so that it could be called a 737, but the "entire reason for its existence" was to mount larger more fuel-efficient engines.

masklinn 7y ago
> the "entire reason for its existence" was to mount larger more fuel-efficient engines. On a 737 type. Not on a completely different type which would require retraining all 737 crew and lose months worth of flight time. Even less so for companies like Southwest which fly 737s exclusively.
- mrep 7y ago
  Still would be a lot cheaper than scrapping 80 billion dollars worth of planes already built.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    Seems like a prime demo of sunk costs fallacy.
    - mrep 7y ago
      Half of that is from unsold planes that they built after it got grounded. So for those, their options are retrain pilots and make 40 billion in sales vs not retraining pilots and scrapping the planes/reusing what you can. Pretty sure the 40 billion in sales will easily be greater than retraining the pilots and whatever scrap they could use. Also, "Typically, once an airline takes the aircraft, Boeing makes some guarantees in terms of the performance of that aircraft, and one of them is that the aircraft should be airworthy," says Chris Higgins, an analyst at Morningstar [0]. So even the other half that is already sold isn't necessarily sunk for them as they have contractual obligations that will cost them if the planes have to get scrapped. [0]: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/703189895/for-boeing-costs-of-grounding-jets-have-only-just-begun https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/703189895/for-boeing-costs-of...

masklinn 7y ago

> the "entire reason for its existence" was to mount larger more fuel-efficient engines. On a 737 type. Not on a completely different type which would require retraining all 737 crew and lose months worth of flight time. Even less so for companies like Southwest which fly 737s exclusively.

mrep 7y ago
Still would be a lot cheaper than scrapping 80 billion dollars worth of planes already built.
- masklinn 7y ago
  Seems like a prime demo of sunk costs fallacy.
  - mrep 7y ago
    Half of that is from unsold planes that they built after it got grounded. So for those, their options are retrain pilots and make 40 billion in sales vs not retraining pilots and scrapping the planes/reusing what you can. Pretty sure the 40 billion in sales will easily be greater than retraining the pilots and whatever scrap they could use. Also, "Typically, once an airline takes the aircraft, Boeing makes some guarantees in terms of the performance of that aircraft, and one of them is that the aircraft should be airworthy," says Chris Higgins, an analyst at Morningstar [0]. So even the other half that is already sold isn't necessarily sunk for them as they have contractual obligations that will cost them if the planes have to get scrapped. [0]: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/703189895/for-boeing-costs-of-grounding-jets-have-only-just-begun https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/703189895/for-boeing-costs-of...