14 ms·

Norwegian Air cancels order for 97 Boeing aircraft, sues Boeing

198 points by cockpitherald 6y ago

redleggedfrog 6y ago
I wonder who is going to have the guts to kill the 737 Max for good. It's never going to fly with airline and passengers ever again,
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  That seems like a huge mistake to me. As it's been said many times, "Safety regulations are written in blood." At this point we probably know more about the flaws in the MAX than almost any other aircraft. And it's not like the plane was fundamentally unsound at a design level, but that bean counting, shortcuts and a failing culture made it unsound. I mean, I haven't heard anyone of authority say the flaws with the Max aren't fixable. If the Max "never flies again", it will just be because it's rebranded, not because it's a fundamentally different aircraft.
  - paganel 6y ago
    > And it's not like the plane was fundamentally unsound at a design level, but that bean counting I'm not an airframe designer by any means but from the countless threads that I've read on this website about this subject (coming from people who seemed more knowledgable than me on the subject) it did seem like the plane was fundamentally unsound at a design level.
    - jmarbach 6y ago
      Same. My understanding is that adding larger engines, and moving them forward on the wing, make the the airframe unable to fly at level altitude without software automatically adjusting the pitch.
      - throwanem 6y ago
        Not quite. The issue is that, due to the engine placement and its effect on center of gravity, the aircraft will tend past a certain angle of attack to start nosing into a stall, rather than away from one. MCAS was added to counteract this highly counterintuitive and dangerous tendency by automatically driving the horizontal stabilizer to nose the aircraft back toward level flight. As I understand it, the 737 MAX was the first commercial airframe ever approved by the FAA with this sudden inflection point in behavior when approaching a stall. (There's a term for it, something like "positive rate characteristic", but I forget. Perhaps someone who knows it will mention it here.) Seeing how well that worked out, one hopes it'll also be the last such airframe approved.
        stephen_g 6y ago
        They're pretty adamant that it's not an anti-stall feature - those normally have 'stick pushers' or shakers.
        throwanem 6y ago
        Considering that both crashes occurred because of MCAS acting as intended on the basis of invalid data from a failed AoA sensor with no backup, I feel like that would be a surprising lie for Boeing to have told. edit: And, having checked the Wikipedia page for the system, I find myself surprised that that is in fact a lie Boeing has told. They may as well go ahead and try to rebrand the damned thing, I guess. On top of everything else they've done, I can't see how it would make their problems any worse... also edit: Via Wikipedia, 14 CFR 25.203: "No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal [pitch] control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall." This is the characteristic the MAX lacks due to the engine placement. If you want to add an active system to correct for that, the AoA sensor is what you use to drive it, since that's what tells you the difference between the direction of airflow and the angle of the wing. That's how you know you're approaching a stall, and need to add a negative pitching moment. But if that sensor jams, which being a mechanical device it can do, and you don't have input from another sensor so you can see the disagreement, you risk spurious activation of the system when it isn't needed, potentially forcing the aircraft out of level flight. I get that it's in Boeing's interest to claim MCAS isn't an anti-stall system. Why would they say anything else? To do so would implicitly admit not only that they built an aircraft that would fail dangerously in a common situation, but also that the FAA let them get away with selling it and selling it as type-identical with prior versions lacking the fail-dangerous characteristic. Neither admission would serve their interests. But, equally, why should we take them at their word on this, or indeed anything? It's pretty clear that their corporate interests have ceased to align with ours as potential airline passengers. It's generous unto foolishness, in light of that, to give them the benefit of any doubt whatsoever. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.203
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      > threads that I've read on this website I strongly recommend not getting your 737-MAX facts from HN. Every time the topic comes up, the discussion continues to be riddled with inaccuracies, many of them strongly held beliefs.
    - jaywalk 6y ago
      It's absolutely not unsound at any level. It simply handles differently than pre-MAX 737s in certain scenarios, which would have required pilot re-certification if not for the flawed MCAS software.
      - catalogia 6y ago
        From what I understand it would not get certified today if it were introduced as a new airplane completely unrelated to any others, for a variety of obscure reasons. However if the original 737 in the 60s had the design of the MAX, its pilots would be taught how to fly it without any MCAS software and it would fly just fine.
        jaywalk 6y ago
        You understand incorrectly. The 737 MAX would have no trouble being certified as a new type without MCAS. Boeing did not forget how to design planes.
        genoapol 6y ago
        Without MCAS wouldn't the plane be unbalanced due to engine placement issues and excess weight? From my understanding, the MCAS system was built to offset these problematic default states that come with using an old body not compatible with the upgrades made. I also heard the weight of these new engines caused wings to develop stress cracks. Not sure how it could be considered safe without a better designed MCAS system and addressing the other issues.
        dan_quixote 6y ago
        You seem to be conflating ideas. jaywalk said it best with: > It simply handles differently than pre-MAX 737s in certain scenarios It handles differently than previous 737s due to airframe changes (namely engine position). MCAS was meant to "correct" this for the purpose of skipping re-certification. The airframe isn't fundamentally flawed, the process of certifying it this round was flawed. Which caused Boeing engineers to implement a flawed MCAS system.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      There is nothing wrong with using software to correct for instability; the B-2 Spirit is far less aerodynamically stable then the Max and it's only had one crash in its entire 23 year service history. Boeing failed to provide sufficient redundancy for the MCAS system and proper training to the air crews.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        It wouldn't surprise me, though, if in its entire service history, the B-2 has had fewer total flights than the 737 Max has...
        jellicle 6y ago
        One way to look at it is that 5% of all B-2s ever built have crashed.
        linuxftw 6y ago
        Not to mention to most rigorously trained pilots and the face of the planet. Not to mention the tops minds designing the Aircraft and the software, rather than outsourcing it to code-by-the pound shops like Boeing did.
      - freehunter 6y ago
        Military planes fly a little differently from passenger planes and the humans inside those planes expect different handling characteristics.
  - sjm-lbm 6y ago
    > probably know more about the flaws in the MAX The thing is, we do know a lot about those flaws and the only way to really fix those flaws is with a clean-sheet redesign. The MAX would have flown again, for sure, pre-COVID. However, designs without known fundamental design flaws can handle worldwide airline lift needs for the foreseeable future.. and it's legitimate to wonder what that means for the future of the MAX.
    - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
      > The thing is, we do know a lot about those flaws and the only way to really fix those flaws is with a clean-sheet redesign. That's just not true. People seem to be conflating the fact that the design required software-controlled stability (e.g. MCAS) as a "fundamental" design issue. That's just not the case. The problems were: 1. MCAS was not sufficiently redundant. 2. Boeing tried to get away with the changes to the MAX without requiring recertification or pilot retraining, which was just wrong. Both #1 and #2 have straightforward fixes.
      - GekkePrutser 6y ago
        Yes, I'm kinda surprised they didn't use the COVID lockdown period to do proper pilot training. Most pilots and planes were basically sitting idle anyway. It's good for them to remain somewhat active. And fuel was given away for pretty much free because the overproduction was filling up expensive storage space. This would have been the ideal moment to teach 737 pilots to properly handle the Max aircraft without needing MCAS.
        kayfox 6y ago
        > This would have been the ideal moment to teach 737 pilots to properly handle the Max aircraft without needing MCAS. Well, its not legal to have the 737 MAX without MCAS, so its a moot point. MCAS exists to compensate for undesired control forces as high (near-stall) angles of attack, its not legal to have those performance characteristics in an aircraft. If this was Airbus, this would have been done in software since the A320 series is fly by wire.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    Freight carriers still fly MD-11 as they’re economical and its flaws are well understood, but passenger carriers don’t touch it or the TriStar with a 10ft pole, I think that’s the answer.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Not sure the 737 Max is big enough to be a freighter, though.
      - kayfox 6y ago
        Alaska Airlines operates a number of 737 freighters because of how Alaska the state works logistics wise. People in Alaska will do things like come down to Anchorage and buy all their supplies for several months from Fred Meyers and Costco and box it all up on a freight pallet and have Alaska Air ship it back to the remote area these people live in.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    I think this might have some truth to it. For example, the DC-10 was also a flawed airplane with a terrible safety record in the 70's which was grounded by the FAA as a result. But the flaws were fixed and the plane is still in operation today, now with a safety record comparable to other similar planes.
    - Theodores 6y ago
      Cargo bay doors was the problem with the DC-10. The doors were re-engineered so they were fail safe. They did have other problems but fixing the door latches was it. This is in a different league of design fault to the 737 Max and MCAS. Furthermore this was in a different era before the internet. People only had the mainstream news to go on. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236#:~:text=A%20new%2C%20outward-opening%20cargo,the%20cabin%20prone%20to%20depressurising.&text=On%2025%20May%201979%2C%20271,was%20identified%20as%20the%20cause https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236#:~....
      - kube-system 6y ago
        How is it in a different league? We know why the planes crashed, and we know what to do to fix it. Add some AOA redundancies, and get a new type certification that requires pilot retraining. Safety is not a complicated goal to achieve. You identify hazards and you rectify them. The hard part is identifying them, which in this case has already tragically happened.
        Theodores 6y ago
        Not really. The fix for the cargo doors was not affecting the aerodynamics, centre of gravity and how the plane handled. The pilots didn't need updated type certification for the fixed cargo doors. Your easy fixes for the dreaded 737 max sound like those of an armchair expert.
        kube-system 6y ago
        It is my understanding that the inherent handling characteristics of the 737 Max would have been acceptable under a new type certification, without MCAS. Is this incorrect?
- linuxftw 6y ago
  My guess is Russia or China. Then the US will be fomented into supporting this terrible plane as a patriotic duty. People will start taking "Freedom Flights" to prove to those bad people "over there" that America is #1!
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Or just rebrand it. I'm sort of amazed they haven't done that already...
  - BitwiseFool 6y ago
    I don't know about you, but I never want to fly on a 737 MAX no matter what they rename it. Every time I have booked a ticket online the website tells me what kind of aircraft I would be flying on.
    - flyinglizard 6y ago
      That’s exactly what the rebranding is for.
    - dom96 6y ago
      As nice as this info is, is there any actual guarantee that it is valid? I wouldn't be surprised if airlines switch planes around all the time, so by the time you check in you may be flying a MAX plane (and possibly not even be aware).
      - mstade 6y ago
        This is anecdotal, but I've never once out of hundreds of flights experienced what you're describing. Sure, replacement flights when things got cancelled may have been on a different aircraft, but then it's a different flight altogether so not particularly surprising. I'd be curious to know if under normal circumstances they ever fly a plane other than the one listed, I have no idea. Edit: to clarify a bit, I know this because I'm a nerd and sometimes pick flights specifically because of the type of plane used. I quite enjoyed the A380. :o)
        txcwpalpha 6y ago
        It doesn't happen on something like an A380 (especially since there isn't exactly any other plane type to switch to from an A380 without huge issues), but it's pretty common on smaller jets, especially in the A320 family or 737 family where they are nearly-identically-sized jets that can be swapped out easily. If you're scheduled to fly on a 737-800 but there's a problem with the jet, they might swap it out for a 737-400 (which is pretty much just an older generation of the -800, similar to how the -800 is an older generation of the MAX 8) and it would go completely unnoticed by almost every passenger. That happens less often nowadays that most (all?) of the -400s are retired, but I would expect it to start happening again once the MAXs return to service and they are being deployed side-by-side with the NGs.
- bjarneh 6y ago
  > It's never going to fly with airline and passengers ever again, What are Boing's alternatives here? I guess they should go back to the drawing board and scrap this idea of just adding some large engines on a plane that was not made for them. But that fatal idea, have put them in a horrible position. The airline business seems to be very much about saving money on fuel, and creating a new fuel efficient airplane is going to take a lot of time (which is guess is why they did this quick and dirty hack the last time, to stay competitive). In a business like that trust is everything, and I feel the more they are trying to force people into that flawed airplane, the less likely it seems that people will trust them ever again.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    The reason Boeing went with adding bigger engines to small a plane that couldn't have them is because airlines also like to save money in training and certification. If Boeing made them spend money in new training, they could spend money in better planes from the competition as well.
  - Gravityloss 6y ago
    Well, now is the time for a clean sheet design. There isn't going to be any near term demand anyway. When production really kicks in ten years from now, the world will look different - everybody is flying really old gas guzzler planes.
  - pcurve 6y ago
    Yep. Trust is everything. Boeing is already on thin ice. Just imagine, there is one more crash related to this, and what the fall out would be. Boeing as a company would be toast. That's the risk Boeing is dealing with on hand. And it won't be just Boeing's problem, it will also be airlines' problems for not taking firmer stance.
    - syshum 6y ago
      Boeing's passenger plane business would be done But the Space and Defense Contracts would be more than enough to keep the company around
- david38 6y ago
  Of course it will. Software is much cheaper to iterate on than say wing design.
  - walkingolof 6y ago
    I would assume that most work is done in something like Dassault Systèmes Catia etc, so the wing is software also for most of its life...
    - dan_quixote 6y ago
      As soon as the tooling begins manufacture, it's a heck of a lot more difficult to make revisions. It takes about 2 years from the beginning of tooling manufacture until the first wing parts touch it (validation testing). And another year or three before actual, meant-to-fly, wing parts touch it. Any changes to wing design risk rebooting the entire process I just described. Additionally, the people doing this work are an extremely limited resource. Major schedule changes disrupt all the future work they previously scheduled. You can't just bring in some contractors to fill in because the work is rather new/novel every time.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Pre-covid I would have said of course it will fly. Because there is too much money at stake. Airlines aren't going to just cancel their orders and sell their MAX-8's and buy Airbus (suing Boeing for the difference). Now with Covid, another possibility has opened up: a massive surplus of aircraft for the coming decade might actually make it redundant. Airlines will die left and right and there will be more than enough cheap planes to go around even without the MAX-8's. I'd have no problem flying in one, as soon as authorities approve it.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    The MAX-8 was meant to be more fuel efficient than previous 737s, and from what I understand fuel is a huge expense for airlines. Could airliners truly become so cheap that fuel costs are no longer a consideration?
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      Assuming the airliner surplus portends a medium term economic slowdown, then fuel will also likely be quite cheap.
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      The scenario I was considering was one where the half of the global fleet that is old/inefficient aircraft is kept grounded, but the modern part of the global fleet (e.g. A321 as an alternative to MAX8) is flying, and is big enough to cover the need.
    - russb 6y ago
      Much easier to just increase ticket prices than offset fuel costs by buying more efficient jets. In a healthy environment, there’s always downward pressure on ticket costs, and you have to find efficiencies elsewhere. We aren’t in a healthy environment anymore...
    - manquer 6y ago
      Fuel costs are bigger consideration in long haul flights (planes fly 12 hours a day ) than short ones (planes fly only 4-5 hrs a day). Long flights traditionally were serviced by wide body aircraft , in recent years with longer range and favourable ETOPS regulations narrow aircraft like 737 max and 320neo were desirable for low volume long haul routes. Also at the time of design in 2010 jet fuel prices were at all time highs , fuel prices are at all time low now . Given the surplus in the market , Low fuel prices, drop in demand the ROI for investing in 737 max may not simply exist anymore.
- kn0where 6y ago
  The international regulators are getting their modifications made. The plane is undergoing new flight tests as of this week. It will be a slow restart due to COVID but the plane has survived the biggest obstacles already. It will be in passenger service again.
- V_Terranova_Jr 6y ago
  This reflects a lack of understanding how the U.S. Government works. There's essentially zero chance your statement is correct. There will be changes made to the aircraft, changes to training regimen, multiple reviews, etc., but the 737 Max will be recertified to fly. That shouldn't be taken as an endorsement, just an acknowledgement of reality. Source: You can look up my profile and comment history. I don't work on the civil side, but I know how things work in the USG.
TheJoeMan 6y ago
Imagine getting to break your contract and then sue to try to get your initial deposit back. Isn't that the whole point of a deposit?
- FabHK 6y ago
  But what if the supplier cannot deliver what they promised? If Tesla cannot deliver the <XZY>, can they keep your deposit?
- koolba 6y ago
  Not necessarily. A refundable deposit is not unheard of. It's a good way to verify that your customer's are truly interested and at least partially capable of paying for the final product. For example, Tesla's deposit is refundable: https://www.tesla.com/support/model-3-reservation-deposit https://www.tesla.com/support/model-3-reservation-deposit
  - blinding-streak 6y ago
    Except that in practice, getting your refund back is not easy at all. Tesla marketing and Tesla reality are often far apart. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/tesla-refund-and-return-problems-detailed.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/tesla-refund-and-return-prob... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/tesla-would-be-customers-grouse-as-deposit-refunds-take-months https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/tesla-wou... https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/deposit-refund-3 https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/deposit-refund-3
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Tesla has gotten better. A friend had their Solar Roof deposit returned within a week after Tesla cancelled their order. Will it be just as easy if Cybertruck doesn't live up to the hype? I'll report back.
      - blinding-streak 6y ago
blinding-streak 6y ago
The entire airline industry (and travel as a whole) is under incredible stress right now. Many airlines have already gone bankrupt [1], and most others are near the brink. I don't think there's going to be any shortage of lawsuits going forward. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-airlines-that-failed-bankrupt-covid19-pandemic-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-airlines-that-fa...
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I suspect a lot of the lawsuits will outlive the airlines filing them.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    Bankruptcies can take years or decades.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      I know Lehman brothers is still working it’s way through. But that’s a financial institution that innovated too much making things complicated. But that’s more of a liquidation. We have plenty of experience with airline bankruptcies, and they’re basically all the same. United Airlines took 38 months. American Airlines, about 26 months. 2 years for Delta. The problem is the domino effect: a newly recovered airline is much leaner and tends to put the non-bankruptcy filers at risk.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- tyingq 6y ago
  Most of the US airlines took the COVID bailout bill money. That bill required them to maintain specific service, and avoid layoffs through the end of September. Expect some chaotic changes in October.
exabrial 6y ago
Reading between the lines of hype, this is the most important fact in the article: > [Norwegian Air] delayed general shareholders meeting on Tuesday and on the same day Boeing started re-certification tests for MAX aircraft
niffydroid 6y ago
Aerospace is taking a massive hit, in the UK we've seen redundancies and are seeing more today.
donut2d 6y ago
There was recent news(April/March) about Norwegian actually running extremely low on cash to a point of bankruptcy and the airline laid off like 90% of their workforce due to Covid19 pandemic and lack of flights/demand.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
  I really hope this doesn’t happen - Norwegian is the best low cost long haul airline out there. Round trip AUS-LGW tickets can be found for sub $500 on Norwegian. The premium is also very competitive for the same flight ($800-1200) when competitors doing similar route (BA) charge more than double that, and the service certainly isn’t doubled. They are also flying very new planes and as such are a much nicer experience. There are always plugs under the seats, IFE is modern and available on every seat. Also the way they handle seat service is much more convenient, you order and pay through the IFE console instead of having to wait for the cart to come around and as such you have complete service all the way though the flight. Even on domestic flights in Europe they are a pretty reasonable experience, much better than Ryanair and Easyjet at least. They are often priced about 10-20% more expensive than Ryanair and Easyjet when you probably get double the comfort and service and half the annoyances. I might sound like a shill for Norwegian but I think they really fill the Southwest niche here - a decently low cost (but not lowest) airline that doesn’t treat you or it’s employees like shit. That’s not to say they are without flaws either. I and others have had some sketchy times where Norwegian has fought awarding the EU mandated reimbursement for delayed/cancelled flights. But no other international airline in Europe straddles the line between legacy carrier level of service and barebones low-cost as well as Norwegian.
  - menybuvico 6y ago
    Fought is expressing it mildly; they're outright refusing unless you threaten them with court action.
  - pb7 6y ago
    For what it’s worth, I also deeply enjoyed every long haul flight I’ve taken on Norwegian B787s. The value was definitely there.
walkingolof 6y ago
BOC Aviation, controlled by the Chinese state, is now a majority owner of Norwegian, BOC have previously canceled 737 Max orders. https://www.thelocal.no/20200520/china-become-norwegians-biggest-owner-after-debt-swap https://www.thelocal.no/20200520/china-become-norwegians-big...
- tankenmate 6y ago
  Interesting. Anyone have any idea if this will lead to a Comac C919 order? [0] Just remembered, this would have to pass the EASA certification at a minimum, if that happens or they start pushing for it it might be an indicator. Belt and Road no doubt, and quite possibly seeking to capitalise on the duopoly having a hard time. May lead to EU / US shoring up their respective industries. Maybe also burying their WTO hatchets? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 [EDIT] asked further questions
  - FreakyT 6y ago
    My first thought as well -- would be interesting to see the C919 flown on more western routes.
  - rurban 6y ago
    Much more likely are replacements with Airbus if they can get the Boeing money back. Boing being now a hedgefund company, not an engineering company anymore (like VW), this sounds difficult and the lawsuit could last several years. So it looks like Norway has to stick with their Boing's. I never heard of the 787 engine problems, this seems to be severe also. The Comac is an interesting option, but it will still need several years. Airbus is the only option.
  - kn0where 6y ago
    Zero reason for a Comac order when there’s tons of used A320s and 737s sitting around up for sale or lease.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    Comac is expected to pass European certifications? I can’t be pissed more about MRJ/MSJ right now...
jimbob45 6y ago
Boeing has terrible management and deserves to go under for the 737 Max fiasco but... ...it seems like maybe Norwegian Air is reeling from coronavirus-induced low demand and is trying to escape its responsibilities.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Bit of both. Norwegian Air needs money, no doubt. But Boeing took a deposit and didn’t deliver a usable product. Under certain circumstances it makes sense for Boeing to return the deposit; they didn’t uphold their end of the deal. The lawsuit will almost certainly hinge on the terms of the deal and whatever local precedence and law might exist in this area.
- steffan 6y ago
  > Boeing has terrible management and deserves to go under for the 737 Max fiasco This seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Boeing employees 145,000 people. You're advocating making the equivalent of a small city jobless based on the actions of a very small contingent. Additionally, aerospace is a capital intensive business. To give up Boeing would mean the likely-permanent loss of sophisticated manufacturing capabilities in the United States. Nobody is starting a new aircraft manufacturer on AWS using Javascript. It would take tens of billions of dollars to even begin to attempt to re-create a company with Boeing's capabilities.
  - jellicle 6y ago
    > You're advocating making the equivalent of a small city jobless based on the actions of a very small contingent. No one has ever advocated that every person at Boeing be fired and that's not what happens in large corporate bankruptcies. So no, that's not what the other poster was advocating. In general, I've seen people advocating that Boeing's shareholders be wiped out, senior management fired and the company be rebooted with a thorough dedication towards "safety first" as opposed to "short-term profits first".
    - mprovost 6y ago

198 points by cockpitherald 6y ago

I wonder who is going to have the guts to kill the 737 Max for good. It's never going to fly with airline and passengers ever again,

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
That seems like a huge mistake to me. As it's been said many times, "Safety regulations are written in blood." At this point we probably know more about the flaws in the MAX than almost any other aircraft. And it's not like the plane was fundamentally unsound at a design level, but that bean counting, shortcuts and a failing culture made it unsound. I mean, I haven't heard anyone of authority say the flaws with the Max aren't fixable. If the Max "never flies again", it will just be because it's rebranded, not because it's a fundamentally different aircraft.
- paganel 6y ago
  > And it's not like the plane was fundamentally unsound at a design level, but that bean counting I'm not an airframe designer by any means but from the countless threads that I've read on this website about this subject (coming from people who seemed more knowledgable than me on the subject) it did seem like the plane was fundamentally unsound at a design level.
  - jmarbach 6y ago
    Same. My understanding is that adding larger engines, and moving them forward on the wing, make the the airframe unable to fly at level altitude without software automatically adjusting the pitch.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      Not quite. The issue is that, due to the engine placement and its effect on center of gravity, the aircraft will tend past a certain angle of attack to start nosing into a stall, rather than away from one. MCAS was added to counteract this highly counterintuitive and dangerous tendency by automatically driving the horizontal stabilizer to nose the aircraft back toward level flight. As I understand it, the 737 MAX was the first commercial airframe ever approved by the FAA with this sudden inflection point in behavior when approaching a stall. (There's a term for it, something like "positive rate characteristic", but I forget. Perhaps someone who knows it will mention it here.) Seeing how well that worked out, one hopes it'll also be the last such airframe approved.
      - stephen_g 6y ago
        They're pretty adamant that it's not an anti-stall feature - those normally have 'stick pushers' or shakers.
        throwanem 6y ago
        Considering that both crashes occurred because of MCAS acting as intended on the basis of invalid data from a failed AoA sensor with no backup, I feel like that would be a surprising lie for Boeing to have told. edit: And, having checked the Wikipedia page for the system, I find myself surprised that that is in fact a lie Boeing has told. They may as well go ahead and try to rebrand the damned thing, I guess. On top of everything else they've done, I can't see how it would make their problems any worse... also edit: Via Wikipedia, 14 CFR 25.203: "No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal [pitch] control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall." This is the characteristic the MAX lacks due to the engine placement. If you want to add an active system to correct for that, the AoA sensor is what you use to drive it, since that's what tells you the difference between the direction of airflow and the angle of the wing. That's how you know you're approaching a stall, and need to add a negative pitching moment. But if that sensor jams, which being a mechanical device it can do, and you don't have input from another sensor so you can see the disagreement, you risk spurious activation of the system when it isn't needed, potentially forcing the aircraft out of level flight. I get that it's in Boeing's interest to claim MCAS isn't an anti-stall system. Why would they say anything else? To do so would implicitly admit not only that they built an aircraft that would fail dangerously in a common situation, but also that the FAA let them get away with selling it and selling it as type-identical with prior versions lacking the fail-dangerous characteristic. Neither admission would serve their interests. But, equally, why should we take them at their word on this, or indeed anything? It's pretty clear that their corporate interests have ceased to align with ours as potential airline passengers. It's generous unto foolishness, in light of that, to give them the benefit of any doubt whatsoever. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.203
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    > threads that I've read on this website I strongly recommend not getting your 737-MAX facts from HN. Every time the topic comes up, the discussion continues to be riddled with inaccuracies, many of them strongly held beliefs.
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    It's absolutely not unsound at any level. It simply handles differently than pre-MAX 737s in certain scenarios, which would have required pilot re-certification if not for the flawed MCAS software.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      From what I understand it would not get certified today if it were introduced as a new airplane completely unrelated to any others, for a variety of obscure reasons. However if the original 737 in the 60s had the design of the MAX, its pilots would be taught how to fly it without any MCAS software and it would fly just fine.
      - jaywalk 6y ago
        You understand incorrectly. The 737 MAX would have no trouble being certified as a new type without MCAS. Boeing did not forget how to design planes.
        genoapol 6y ago
        Without MCAS wouldn't the plane be unbalanced due to engine placement issues and excess weight? From my understanding, the MCAS system was built to offset these problematic default states that come with using an old body not compatible with the upgrades made. I also heard the weight of these new engines caused wings to develop stress cracks. Not sure how it could be considered safe without a better designed MCAS system and addressing the other issues.
        dan_quixote 6y ago
        You seem to be conflating ideas. jaywalk said it best with: > It simply handles differently than pre-MAX 737s in certain scenarios It handles differently than previous 737s due to airframe changes (namely engine position). MCAS was meant to "correct" this for the purpose of skipping re-certification. The airframe isn't fundamentally flawed, the process of certifying it this round was flawed. Which caused Boeing engineers to implement a flawed MCAS system.
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    There is nothing wrong with using software to correct for instability; the B-2 Spirit is far less aerodynamically stable then the Max and it's only had one crash in its entire 23 year service history. Boeing failed to provide sufficient redundancy for the MCAS system and proper training to the air crews.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      It wouldn't surprise me, though, if in its entire service history, the B-2 has had fewer total flights than the 737 Max has...
      - jellicle 6y ago
        One way to look at it is that 5% of all B-2s ever built have crashed.
      - linuxftw 6y ago
        Not to mention to most rigorously trained pilots and the face of the planet. Not to mention the tops minds designing the Aircraft and the software, rather than outsourcing it to code-by-the pound shops like Boeing did.
    - freehunter 6y ago
      Military planes fly a little differently from passenger planes and the humans inside those planes expect different handling characteristics.
- sjm-lbm 6y ago
  > probably know more about the flaws in the MAX The thing is, we do know a lot about those flaws and the only way to really fix those flaws is with a clean-sheet redesign. The MAX would have flown again, for sure, pre-COVID. However, designs without known fundamental design flaws can handle worldwide airline lift needs for the foreseeable future.. and it's legitimate to wonder what that means for the future of the MAX.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    > The thing is, we do know a lot about those flaws and the only way to really fix those flaws is with a clean-sheet redesign. That's just not true. People seem to be conflating the fact that the design required software-controlled stability (e.g. MCAS) as a "fundamental" design issue. That's just not the case. The problems were: 1. MCAS was not sufficiently redundant. 2. Boeing tried to get away with the changes to the MAX without requiring recertification or pilot retraining, which was just wrong. Both #1 and #2 have straightforward fixes.
    - GekkePrutser 6y ago
      Yes, I'm kinda surprised they didn't use the COVID lockdown period to do proper pilot training. Most pilots and planes were basically sitting idle anyway. It's good for them to remain somewhat active. And fuel was given away for pretty much free because the overproduction was filling up expensive storage space. This would have been the ideal moment to teach 737 pilots to properly handle the Max aircraft without needing MCAS.
      - kayfox 6y ago
        > This would have been the ideal moment to teach 737 pilots to properly handle the Max aircraft without needing MCAS. Well, its not legal to have the 737 MAX without MCAS, so its a moot point. MCAS exists to compensate for undesired control forces as high (near-stall) angles of attack, its not legal to have those performance characteristics in an aircraft. If this was Airbus, this would have been done in software since the A320 series is fly by wire.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Freight carriers still fly MD-11 as they’re economical and its flaws are well understood, but passenger carriers don’t touch it or the TriStar with a 10ft pole, I think that’s the answer.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Not sure the 737 Max is big enough to be a freighter, though.
    - kayfox 6y ago
      Alaska Airlines operates a number of 737 freighters because of how Alaska the state works logistics wise. People in Alaska will do things like come down to Anchorage and buy all their supplies for several months from Fred Meyers and Costco and box it all up on a freight pallet and have Alaska Air ship it back to the remote area these people live in.
- kube-system 6y ago
  I think this might have some truth to it. For example, the DC-10 was also a flawed airplane with a terrible safety record in the 70's which was grounded by the FAA as a result. But the flaws were fixed and the plane is still in operation today, now with a safety record comparable to other similar planes.
  - Theodores 6y ago
    Cargo bay doors was the problem with the DC-10. The doors were re-engineered so they were fail safe. They did have other problems but fixing the door latches was it. This is in a different league of design fault to the 737 Max and MCAS. Furthermore this was in a different era before the internet. People only had the mainstream news to go on. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236#:~:text=A%20new%2C%20outward-opening%20cargo,the%20cabin%20prone%20to%20depressurising.&text=On%2025%20May%201979%2C%20271,was%20identified%20as%20the%20cause https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236#:~....
    - kube-system 6y ago
      How is it in a different league? We know why the planes crashed, and we know what to do to fix it. Add some AOA redundancies, and get a new type certification that requires pilot retraining. Safety is not a complicated goal to achieve. You identify hazards and you rectify them. The hard part is identifying them, which in this case has already tragically happened.
      - Theodores 6y ago
        Not really. The fix for the cargo doors was not affecting the aerodynamics, centre of gravity and how the plane handled. The pilots didn't need updated type certification for the fixed cargo doors. Your easy fixes for the dreaded 737 max sound like those of an armchair expert.
        kube-system 6y ago
        It is my understanding that the inherent handling characteristics of the 737 Max would have been acceptable under a new type certification, without MCAS. Is this incorrect?
linuxftw 6y ago
My guess is Russia or China. Then the US will be fomented into supporting this terrible plane as a patriotic duty. People will start taking "Freedom Flights" to prove to those bad people "over there" that America is #1!
LatteLazy 6y ago
Or just rebrand it. I'm sort of amazed they haven't done that already...
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  I don't know about you, but I never want to fly on a 737 MAX no matter what they rename it. Every time I have booked a ticket online the website tells me what kind of aircraft I would be flying on.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    That’s exactly what the rebranding is for.
  - dom96 6y ago
    As nice as this info is, is there any actual guarantee that it is valid? I wouldn't be surprised if airlines switch planes around all the time, so by the time you check in you may be flying a MAX plane (and possibly not even be aware).
    - mstade 6y ago
      This is anecdotal, but I've never once out of hundreds of flights experienced what you're describing. Sure, replacement flights when things got cancelled may have been on a different aircraft, but then it's a different flight altogether so not particularly surprising. I'd be curious to know if under normal circumstances they ever fly a plane other than the one listed, I have no idea. Edit: to clarify a bit, I know this because I'm a nerd and sometimes pick flights specifically because of the type of plane used. I quite enjoyed the A380. :o)
      - txcwpalpha 6y ago
        It doesn't happen on something like an A380 (especially since there isn't exactly any other plane type to switch to from an A380 without huge issues), but it's pretty common on smaller jets, especially in the A320 family or 737 family where they are nearly-identically-sized jets that can be swapped out easily. If you're scheduled to fly on a 737-800 but there's a problem with the jet, they might swap it out for a 737-400 (which is pretty much just an older generation of the -800, similar to how the -800 is an older generation of the MAX 8) and it would go completely unnoticed by almost every passenger. That happens less often nowadays that most (all?) of the -400s are retired, but I would expect it to start happening again once the MAXs return to service and they are being deployed side-by-side with the NGs.
bjarneh 6y ago
> It's never going to fly with airline and passengers ever again, What are Boing's alternatives here? I guess they should go back to the drawing board and scrap this idea of just adding some large engines on a plane that was not made for them. But that fatal idea, have put them in a horrible position. The airline business seems to be very much about saving money on fuel, and creating a new fuel efficient airplane is going to take a lot of time (which is guess is why they did this quick and dirty hack the last time, to stay competitive). In a business like that trust is everything, and I feel the more they are trying to force people into that flawed airplane, the less likely it seems that people will trust them ever again.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  The reason Boeing went with adding bigger engines to small a plane that couldn't have them is because airlines also like to save money in training and certification. If Boeing made them spend money in new training, they could spend money in better planes from the competition as well.
- Gravityloss 6y ago
  Well, now is the time for a clean sheet design. There isn't going to be any near term demand anyway. When production really kicks in ten years from now, the world will look different - everybody is flying really old gas guzzler planes.
- pcurve 6y ago
  Yep. Trust is everything. Boeing is already on thin ice. Just imagine, there is one more crash related to this, and what the fall out would be. Boeing as a company would be toast. That's the risk Boeing is dealing with on hand. And it won't be just Boeing's problem, it will also be airlines' problems for not taking firmer stance.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Boeing's passenger plane business would be done But the Space and Defense Contracts would be more than enough to keep the company around
david38 6y ago
Of course it will. Software is much cheaper to iterate on than say wing design.
- walkingolof 6y ago
  I would assume that most work is done in something like Dassault Systèmes Catia etc, so the wing is software also for most of its life...
  - dan_quixote 6y ago
    As soon as the tooling begins manufacture, it's a heck of a lot more difficult to make revisions. It takes about 2 years from the beginning of tooling manufacture until the first wing parts touch it (validation testing). And another year or three before actual, meant-to-fly, wing parts touch it. Any changes to wing design risk rebooting the entire process I just described. Additionally, the people doing this work are an extremely limited resource. Major schedule changes disrupt all the future work they previously scheduled. You can't just bring in some contractors to fill in because the work is rather new/novel every time.
alkonaut 6y ago
Pre-covid I would have said of course it will fly. Because there is too much money at stake. Airlines aren't going to just cancel their orders and sell their MAX-8's and buy Airbus (suing Boeing for the difference). Now with Covid, another possibility has opened up: a massive surplus of aircraft for the coming decade might actually make it redundant. Airlines will die left and right and there will be more than enough cheap planes to go around even without the MAX-8's. I'd have no problem flying in one, as soon as authorities approve it.
- catalogia 6y ago
  The MAX-8 was meant to be more fuel efficient than previous 737s, and from what I understand fuel is a huge expense for airlines. Could airliners truly become so cheap that fuel costs are no longer a consideration?
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    Assuming the airliner surplus portends a medium term economic slowdown, then fuel will also likely be quite cheap.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    The scenario I was considering was one where the half of the global fleet that is old/inefficient aircraft is kept grounded, but the modern part of the global fleet (e.g. A321 as an alternative to MAX8) is flying, and is big enough to cover the need.
  - russb 6y ago
    Much easier to just increase ticket prices than offset fuel costs by buying more efficient jets. In a healthy environment, there’s always downward pressure on ticket costs, and you have to find efficiencies elsewhere. We aren’t in a healthy environment anymore...
  - manquer 6y ago
    Fuel costs are bigger consideration in long haul flights (planes fly 12 hours a day ) than short ones (planes fly only 4-5 hrs a day). Long flights traditionally were serviced by wide body aircraft , in recent years with longer range and favourable ETOPS regulations narrow aircraft like 737 max and 320neo were desirable for low volume long haul routes. Also at the time of design in 2010 jet fuel prices were at all time highs , fuel prices are at all time low now . Given the surplus in the market , Low fuel prices, drop in demand the ROI for investing in 737 max may not simply exist anymore.
kn0where 6y ago
The international regulators are getting their modifications made. The plane is undergoing new flight tests as of this week. It will be a slow restart due to COVID but the plane has survived the biggest obstacles already. It will be in passenger service again.
V_Terranova_Jr 6y ago
This reflects a lack of understanding how the U.S. Government works. There's essentially zero chance your statement is correct. There will be changes made to the aircraft, changes to training regimen, multiple reviews, etc., but the 737 Max will be recertified to fly. That shouldn't be taken as an endorsement, just an acknowledgement of reality. Source: You can look up my profile and comment history. I don't work on the civil side, but I know how things work in the USG.

TheJoeMan 6y ago

Imagine getting to break your contract and then sue to try to get your initial deposit back. Isn't that the whole point of a deposit?

FabHK 6y ago
But what if the supplier cannot deliver what they promised? If Tesla cannot deliver the <XZY>, can they keep your deposit?
koolba 6y ago
Not necessarily. A refundable deposit is not unheard of. It's a good way to verify that your customer's are truly interested and at least partially capable of paying for the final product. For example, Tesla's deposit is refundable: https://www.tesla.com/support/model-3-reservation-deposit https://www.tesla.com/support/model-3-reservation-deposit
- blinding-streak 6y ago
  Except that in practice, getting your refund back is not easy at all. Tesla marketing and Tesla reality are often far apart. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/tesla-refund-and-return-problems-detailed.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/tesla-refund-and-return-prob... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/tesla-would-be-customers-grouse-as-deposit-refunds-take-months https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/tesla-wou... https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/deposit-refund-3 https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/deposit-refund-3
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Tesla has gotten better. A friend had their Solar Roof deposit returned within a week after Tesla cancelled their order. Will it be just as easy if Cybertruck doesn't live up to the hype? I'll report back.
    - blinding-streak 6y ago

blinding-streak 6y ago

The entire airline industry (and travel as a whole) is under incredible stress right now. Many airlines have already gone bankrupt [1], and most others are near the brink. I don't think there's going to be any shortage of lawsuits going forward. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-airlines-that-failed-bankrupt-covid19-pandemic-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-airlines-that-fa...

ceejayoz 6y ago
I suspect a lot of the lawsuits will outlive the airlines filing them.
- the-dude 6y ago
  Bankruptcies can take years or decades.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    I know Lehman brothers is still working it’s way through. But that’s a financial institution that innovated too much making things complicated. But that’s more of a liquidation. We have plenty of experience with airline bankruptcies, and they’re basically all the same. United Airlines took 38 months. American Airlines, about 26 months. 2 years for Delta. The problem is the domino effect: a newly recovered airline is much leaner and tends to put the non-bankruptcy filers at risk.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
tyingq 6y ago
Most of the US airlines took the COVID bailout bill money. That bill required them to maintain specific service, and avoid layoffs through the end of September. Expect some chaotic changes in October.

exabrial 6y ago

Reading between the lines of hype, this is the most important fact in the article: > [Norwegian Air] delayed general shareholders meeting on Tuesday and on the same day Boeing started re-certification tests for MAX aircraft

niffydroid 6y ago

Aerospace is taking a massive hit, in the UK we've seen redundancies and are seeing more today.

donut2d 6y ago

There was recent news(April/March) about Norwegian actually running extremely low on cash to a point of bankruptcy and the airline laid off like 90% of their workforce due to Covid19 pandemic and lack of flights/demand.

SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
I really hope this doesn’t happen - Norwegian is the best low cost long haul airline out there. Round trip AUS-LGW tickets can be found for sub $500 on Norwegian. The premium is also very competitive for the same flight ($800-1200) when competitors doing similar route (BA) charge more than double that, and the service certainly isn’t doubled. They are also flying very new planes and as such are a much nicer experience. There are always plugs under the seats, IFE is modern and available on every seat. Also the way they handle seat service is much more convenient, you order and pay through the IFE console instead of having to wait for the cart to come around and as such you have complete service all the way though the flight. Even on domestic flights in Europe they are a pretty reasonable experience, much better than Ryanair and Easyjet at least. They are often priced about 10-20% more expensive than Ryanair and Easyjet when you probably get double the comfort and service and half the annoyances. I might sound like a shill for Norwegian but I think they really fill the Southwest niche here - a decently low cost (but not lowest) airline that doesn’t treat you or it’s employees like shit. That’s not to say they are without flaws either. I and others have had some sketchy times where Norwegian has fought awarding the EU mandated reimbursement for delayed/cancelled flights. But no other international airline in Europe straddles the line between legacy carrier level of service and barebones low-cost as well as Norwegian.
- menybuvico 6y ago
  Fought is expressing it mildly; they're outright refusing unless you threaten them with court action.
- pb7 6y ago
  For what it’s worth, I also deeply enjoyed every long haul flight I’ve taken on Norwegian B787s. The value was definitely there.

walkingolof 6y ago

BOC Aviation, controlled by the Chinese state, is now a majority owner of Norwegian, BOC have previously canceled 737 Max orders. https://www.thelocal.no/20200520/china-become-norwegians-biggest-owner-after-debt-swap https://www.thelocal.no/20200520/china-become-norwegians-big...

tankenmate 6y ago
Interesting. Anyone have any idea if this will lead to a Comac C919 order? [0] Just remembered, this would have to pass the EASA certification at a minimum, if that happens or they start pushing for it it might be an indicator. Belt and Road no doubt, and quite possibly seeking to capitalise on the duopoly having a hard time. May lead to EU / US shoring up their respective industries. Maybe also burying their WTO hatchets? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 [EDIT] asked further questions
- FreakyT 6y ago
  My first thought as well -- would be interesting to see the C919 flown on more western routes.
- rurban 6y ago
  Much more likely are replacements with Airbus if they can get the Boeing money back. Boing being now a hedgefund company, not an engineering company anymore (like VW), this sounds difficult and the lawsuit could last several years. So it looks like Norway has to stick with their Boing's. I never heard of the 787 engine problems, this seems to be severe also. The Comac is an interesting option, but it will still need several years. Airbus is the only option.
- kn0where 6y ago
  Zero reason for a Comac order when there’s tons of used A320s and 737s sitting around up for sale or lease.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Comac is expected to pass European certifications? I can’t be pissed more about MRJ/MSJ right now...

jimbob45 6y ago

Boeing has terrible management and deserves to go under for the 737 Max fiasco but... ...it seems like maybe Norwegian Air is reeling from coronavirus-induced low demand and is trying to escape its responsibilities.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Bit of both. Norwegian Air needs money, no doubt. But Boeing took a deposit and didn’t deliver a usable product. Under certain circumstances it makes sense for Boeing to return the deposit; they didn’t uphold their end of the deal. The lawsuit will almost certainly hinge on the terms of the deal and whatever local precedence and law might exist in this area.
steffan 6y ago
> Boeing has terrible management and deserves to go under for the 737 Max fiasco This seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Boeing employees 145,000 people. You're advocating making the equivalent of a small city jobless based on the actions of a very small contingent. Additionally, aerospace is a capital intensive business. To give up Boeing would mean the likely-permanent loss of sophisticated manufacturing capabilities in the United States. Nobody is starting a new aircraft manufacturer on AWS using Javascript. It would take tens of billions of dollars to even begin to attempt to re-create a company with Boeing's capabilities.
- jellicle 6y ago
  > You're advocating making the equivalent of a small city jobless based on the actions of a very small contingent. No one has ever advocated that every person at Boeing be fired and that's not what happens in large corporate bankruptcies. So no, that's not what the other poster was advocating. In general, I've seen people advocating that Boeing's shareholders be wiped out, senior management fired and the company be rebooted with a thorough dedication towards "safety first" as opposed to "short-term profits first".
  - mprovost 6y ago