18 ms·

In a weird way, having the Max grounded during 2020 turned out to be lucky timing on Boeing's part. The airlines slowdown due to COVID likely gave them some ser

In a weird way, having the Max grounded during 2020 turned out to be lucky timing on Boeing's part. The airlines slowdown due to COVID likely gave them some serious breathing room while they got their shit together. Now hopefully they actually did get their shit together.

jimbob45 6y ago
I think I disagree. If they’d taken the time to scrap the 737 Max and move to a new design, they’d have had the time and the public would have eaten the new product up. Instead, they doubled down and are now going to try to have to sell a product that many will refuse to ever fly on, myself included.
- 8ytecoder 6y ago
  There are enough people who have no idea what a 737 Max is. I'm sure there would be enough flights and associated data before I have to fly again.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  The original 737 had some early issues also. Tail rudder problems that resulted in crashes is one that comes to mind. They were fixed and now nobody thinks twice about flying them and their long-term safety record is excellent.
  - kayodelycaon 6y ago
    Tail rudder problems is putting it mildly. There was malfunction with a valve that would cause the rudder to move in the opposite direction of the control inputs.
    - cdolan 6y ago
      Correct. Flight 427 to Pittsburgh. My wife’s father was on the flight. The tail’s controls inverted in freezing temperatures.
      - sillysaurusx 6y ago
        Wait, what? Anyone have any more info on this? It seems completely insane for flight control inputs to invert themselves, but only in certain temperatures. I'd love to see the incident report on that... EDIT: Ah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427 I'm so sorry that happened to your wife's father. The accident report is here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/... Section 2.7.2 is interesting: 2.7.2 Unusual Attitude Training for Boeing 737 Pilots At the time of the USAir flight 427 accident, no air carrier training programs were specifically aimed at training 737 pilots to recognize and address a rudder jam or reversal. The guidance available at that time from Boeing advised pilots, as a first consideration, to maintain or regain full control of the airplane. Specifically, the guidance advised pilots to counter unwanted roll tendencies from a malfunctioning rudder with the application of up to full aileron control inputs. However, the guidance did not advise pilots that, at some airspeeds, an uncommanded full rudder input could not be successfully opposed by full wheel (aileron and spoiler) inputs and that a reduction in the airplane’s angle-of-attack could improve the effectiveness of the roll controls relative to the effectiveness of the rudder. Boeing’s guidance for relieving a jammed rudder informed pilots only that they should use maximum force to overpower the jam and specifically warned pilots against turning off flight control switches “unless the faulty control was positively identified.” No additional guidance was provided about the effects of flight control switch selections on rudder jam conditions.
        cdolan 6y ago
        If I start reading I go for hours haha. Am I correct that it inverted/reversed?
        sillysaurusx 6y ago
        Yes, but I'm not sure why it inverted. If you open the accident report (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...) and ctrl-F "rudder", you get 2,112 matches. So "reading for hours" is a distinct possibility in this case... (Oh, by the way, I didn't mean to imply you were mistaken, or anything like that. I was just so shocked that a plane's controls could invert themselves in any conceivable circumstance. Currently digging through the accident report to try to figure out what happened.) "the probable cause of the USAir flight 427 accident was a loss of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its blowdown limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a result of a jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and overtravel of the primary slide" Unfortunately I don't know what most of these terms mean. It sounds like it might be saying "they moved the rudder to its limit, and then it jammed at the limit; so when they tried to command the rudder to go the other way, the rudder was pointed in the opposite direction of the control inputs." But I'm really not sure.
  - bigbob2 6y ago
    In that case maybe I'll give it 50 years to develop the same safety record.
  - Analemma_ 6y ago
    The original 737 wasn't broken-by-design in the way the Max is. The Max _requires_ software kludges to paper over its deliberate mistakes; that's very different from just having a few bugs to work out in a fundamentally sound design.
    - HPsquared 6y ago
      This is a bit of an urban myth that keeps flying around. The plane is perfectly stable without MCAS, but would have had different handling characteristics than the previous version. The purpose of MCAS was to modify the handling to match the previous plane, so pilots' type ratings would carry over with minimal retraining. At its heart, it was a (poorly implemented) kludge in an attempt to sidestep a lot of paperwork.
      - throwaway201103 6y ago
        You're mostly right, but it wasn't just to make it handle like the previous versions, it was to satisfy FAA certification rules on how it handled.
        cjbprime 6y ago
        This is my understanding too, though Boeing hasn't really come out and said it definitively. Specifically: > MCAS was devised to fulfill an airworthiness certification condition in 14 CFR 25.173 and 14 CFR 25.175. In high angle-of-attack (AoA) flight configuration, it is required that stick force/g (the stick force necessary to produce (hold) an incremental normal acceleration of 1g) and stick movement/g (ditto mutatis mutandis) must increase (or at least not decrease) with an increase in AoA (thanks to Clive Leyman for this formulation). I understand that in flight test, in which “wind-up turns” were conducted (a turn with increasing angle of bank; an increasing angle of bank means ceteris paribus increasing AoA), this condition was not fulfilled. -- https://abnormaldistribution.org/index.php/2019/04/30/ieee-spectrum-on-possible-software-involvement-in-two-recent-airliner-crashes/ https://abnormaldistribution.org/index.php/2019/04/30/ieee-s...
        Stierlitz 6y ago
  - salawat 6y ago
    The issue isn't a really a physical one in principle here. It's an issue of corporate accountability. You had corners cut to deliver a product that ended up killing people. There is no real room for doubt in that just from the material we have available. So, what? What happens? What should happen? Everything go back to "normal"? Let the same people who ran things continue to profit off their wrongdoing? Accept that as long as you're one of only two rides in town that you have the security to deliver and recover from delivering a lethal product? That's the issue. That's the reality we're taking out of this. It isn't even self-regulating anymore. There is no bankruptcy, no hammer, no reallocation of assets to those that can wield them more responsibly, no reset. Just a token gesture. The same Goliath just shrugs and moves on. While I get that might be tenable or desirable to some, I'm not one of them. Realistic risk of falling flat on your face, being held to account, and not being able to just shrug it off and keep going keeps you honest. Once you lose that, "What's a life here and there? Doesn't bother me. Can't make an onelette without cracking a few eggs." The economy is not an omelette, and people are not eggs. Either we serve it, or it serves us. I know which side of that assertion I'm on.
    - skybrian 6y ago
      The CEO resigned, so it's questionable whether there are the same people running things. How much other management changed?
      - windthrown 6y ago
        The replacement CEO was previously the chairman of the board. So while they did change personnel, I am skeptical about how different their actual management practices are.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      What alternative would you propose? You can't just remove Boeing as a company: they have tens of thousands of existing aircraft in the field that need to be maintained, and a large number of people who were not at fault in all of this whose jobs would be eliminated. So how do you hold the proper people accountable without doing so much collateral damage that the cost of that outweighs the benefits? Also, responsibility doesn't just like with Boeing; the FAA certified the 737 MAX, and the rules that allowed that to happen were written by lawmakers and bureaucrats over a period of decades. How do you hold all of them accountable? Many, if not most, of those people aren't even actively working any more.
- selectodude 6y ago
  A new plane design takes years from inception to first revenue flight. Early development of the 787 started in 2003, first revenue flight wasn't until 2011. And then we all remember when it spent a couple months grounded in 2013.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  Considering that a new design would take like 10 years to get into production, how would that have been an immediate solution for Boeing? They need to be able to sell more 737 until a new design is ready, and no one wants that to be rushed. While I didn't hear anyting about a new design, I sincerely hope they are at it already though.
  - brianwawok 6y ago
    Can they not make more of the previous design? Or is 100% of production capacity 737 max
    - topspin 6y ago
      > Can they not make more of the previous design? MAX exists as a response to competition. One may assume the previous design is no longer competitive. And no, the body count isn't being considered; fuel efficiency, capacity and leveraging existing training are among the considerations.
    - _ph_ 6y ago
      I don't think previous iterations of the 737 were fundamentally safer. As there were probably other changes done to the 737 Max beyond the different engines, like improving the overall build, I do think that the fixed 737 Max should be safer than any other 737. The issue with the Max was, that a software, which should improve the handling in extreme situations, kicked in in normal conditions and the pilots failed to handle this (runaway stabilizer procedure). And indeed, the software for the MCAS was really badly designed, which has been fixed now and by now every 737 pilot should be aware how the two crashes could have been prevented by the right crew reaction. Both of this should mean that these accidents won't happen again.
      - l33tman 6y ago
        That's true but the lingering issue is that if Boeing and the FAA collaborated in pushing the broken design through certification, how many other issues can and will they cover up that the pilots don't know about? I think most want this systematic problem to get fixed as well, the MCAS at this point is as you say hopefully solved..
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Most people don't know what manufacturer of the aircraft they are flying in, let alone the specific model. I haven't flown in quite a while, but when I did I didn't research what model aircraft I was flying in. I doubt more than a small handful of people do.
  - awslattery 6y ago
    Plenty of airlines list it at time of booking, and is often accessible alongside digital boarding passes. I specifically chose a return option from Japan last year because it was on a 787.
- zhte415 6y ago
  Yes. Taking a 10-15 year timeframe from Boeing publicly signalling intention in 2011 that would mean the new aircraft would have gone to market in early to mid 2020s. Perhaps no one in sufficient interests in Boeing read Irrational Exuberance [1] which covered in a decent amount of detail about downturns +/- 2 years of every decade, always the same root cause if different symptoms. Or perhaps they did but were 'maximising shareholder value' (with a 3 month window on the share price) and didn't care - "this time it's different" after all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Exuberance_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Exuberance_(book)
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  Why? It's now one of the most tested planes in the sky from a review standpoint?
- greeneggs 6y ago
  Given Boeing's recent problems, I would be much happier on an old design that has been well tested, than on a brand-new design.
  - landemva 6y ago
    They crammed big engines under the wings in a way that it could really need a new air type certification. This is more like a new plane, with the baggage of the old 737 and without the certification testing for a new plane. Yes it can fly, but it's pushing the boundaries of safety.
- tourdownunder 6y ago
  It would have been a great time for pilots to be training on the the 737 Max as a different aircraft. The mistake with the 737 Max is that it is a simulator for pilots flying like it was a regular 737. The selling point to not have to train the pilots was the big mistake with the design.
  - BillinghamJ 6y ago
    That intention led to choices in the physical design which are less safe than they otherwise would have been. So although giving dedicated training presumably would be better than nothing, that doesn't absolve this aircraft of the significant concerns about its fundamental suitability due to the decision making approach
cj 6y ago
Not just timing, but COVID is a great diversion from the safety issue entirely (in the eyes of the public) Anyone walking onto an aircraft today is thinking "I hope I don't get a virus" instead of "I hope my plane doesn't crash".
- cupofcoffee 6y ago
  >Anyone walking onto an aircraft today is thinking "I hope I don't get a virus" instead of "I hope my plane doesn't crash". Why would you think that?
pengaru 6y ago
COVID has been a godsend to many struggling or otherwise unstable businesses. Recent example I've had to deal with: Morgan Stanley's acquisition of E-Trade has completely wrecked their customer service experience. Live chat wait times are 2+ hours, getting a secure message response takes 5 days now. Their web site is covered with COVID-19 disclaimers for all the trouble, with a minor blurb about "operational shift". As they say; Never let a good crisis go to waste.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  COVID is the new 9/11. You could blame anything on 9/11... "Wifi is down, due to 9/11"
  - ChrisRR 6y ago
    I've seen people blame practically everything about the PS5 launch on covid "No stock? Must be covid causing manufacturing issues." What? You don't know the sales figures at all and you're making wild assumptions
frogblast 6y ago
Covid’s timing was devastating for Boeing and the 737 Max. When the planes were grounded, Boeing kept producing them assuming the issue would be resolved quickly. As of January 2020, slightly before Covid, they had 400 planes built, but not delivered to customers (and so customers haven’t paid for them). Boeing was funding these aircraft with debt. All of a sudden, demand for air travel drops off a cliff. All those airlines now decide “I’m just not going to take delivery of those aircraft”. Which also means “I’m not going to pay for them”. Had the timing gone in the other order, all of those aircraft would have been delivered, and paid for, and airlines would have been holding the bag. (and the covid crisis would have limited the damages airlines could claim, and thus demand from Boeing, if they could meet their reduced schedules with other aircraft).
- FeistyOtter 6y ago
  Can an airline really refuse an aircraft without wasting some significant amount of money? I assume the airline or leasing company start paying from the moment they place an order all the way through construction, finished by a final payment at the moment of acceptance? When one orders a building company to build a house, you are given a payment schedule, I assume it is the same with airplanes.
  - corty 6y ago
    Airlines on the brink of bancruptcy have to refuse such orders, even if it only saves small amounts of money. And due to Corona, virtually every airline is in financially troubled waters.
  - benhurmarcel 6y ago
    Airliners are paid over a period yes, from the contract signature to several months after delivery. But the biggest chunk of cash changes hands at delivery.
- danielfoster 6y ago
  This is true. I at least hope Boeing was able to reduce the compensation it will pay to airlines. There’s no lost income for airlines if there’s no demand for travel! Low oil prices have also not helped the situation. Airlines need fuel efficient aircraft less than ever right now.
dotancohen 6y ago
> The airlines slowdown due to COVID likely gave them some > serious breathing room while they got their shit together. Though I agree with you, Boeing could have really used the time to properly train 737 type pilots on the MCAS-specific issues. But the whole purpose of MCAS was to not retrain pilots, so instead of those pilot spending the past half year training on the new system, they spent the past half year mostly grounded.
- kayfox 6y ago
  Training pilots before a training program is approved is kinda like throwing money into a fire. They would still have to turn around and train them again with the approved training. Also, being has little to do with the actual decisions on what and how to train pilots not employed by them, the airlines develop training programs that are approved by the FAA and operated with FAA oversight.
ThinkBeat 6y ago
Boeing is stuck with a enormous amount of completes airplanes That nobody wants or can afford. A lot (maybe most) airlines are struggling to survive with the impact of the pandemic on travel. A lot of banks that have lent money to airlines have their security in part in the airplanes. Some countries are pumping money into particular airlines to try to keep them from bankruptcy As more and more airlines news to shed aircraft and employees the market is or will be flooded with used aircraft. Possibly some can be considered converted for freight if the market stays strong there https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/07/25/see-the-boeing-737-max-pile-up-in-storage-in-these-time-lapse-satellite-images/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-737-max-cancellations-continue-as-airline-downturn-shuts-off-jet-orders/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/b...
yread 6y ago
MAX is a lot more efficient than the old NGs or classics (and can also do routes of 757s or 767s if they are thin enough). In a time of reduced demand airlines would prefer to park their more fuel-hungry planes and use the more efficient ones. But they can't because it's grounded. And now there are airlines failing left and right with their planes going on the second hand market, back to lessors or are gutted for parts. That's depressing the price of airplanes and spare parts. That can't be good for Boeing either. Would you buy a 15% more efficient car for twice as much?

jimbob45 6y ago

I think I disagree. If they’d taken the time to scrap the 737 Max and move to a new design, they’d have had the time and the public would have eaten the new product up. Instead, they doubled down and are now going to try to have to sell a product that many will refuse to ever fly on, myself included.

8ytecoder 6y ago
There are enough people who have no idea what a 737 Max is. I'm sure there would be enough flights and associated data before I have to fly again.
throwaway201103 6y ago
The original 737 had some early issues also. Tail rudder problems that resulted in crashes is one that comes to mind. They were fixed and now nobody thinks twice about flying them and their long-term safety record is excellent.
- kayodelycaon 6y ago
  Tail rudder problems is putting it mildly. There was malfunction with a valve that would cause the rudder to move in the opposite direction of the control inputs.
  - cdolan 6y ago
    Correct. Flight 427 to Pittsburgh. My wife’s father was on the flight. The tail’s controls inverted in freezing temperatures.
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      Wait, what? Anyone have any more info on this? It seems completely insane for flight control inputs to invert themselves, but only in certain temperatures. I'd love to see the incident report on that... EDIT: Ah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427 I'm so sorry that happened to your wife's father. The accident report is here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/... Section 2.7.2 is interesting: 2.7.2 Unusual Attitude Training for Boeing 737 Pilots At the time of the USAir flight 427 accident, no air carrier training programs were specifically aimed at training 737 pilots to recognize and address a rudder jam or reversal. The guidance available at that time from Boeing advised pilots, as a first consideration, to maintain or regain full control of the airplane. Specifically, the guidance advised pilots to counter unwanted roll tendencies from a malfunctioning rudder with the application of up to full aileron control inputs. However, the guidance did not advise pilots that, at some airspeeds, an uncommanded full rudder input could not be successfully opposed by full wheel (aileron and spoiler) inputs and that a reduction in the airplane’s angle-of-attack could improve the effectiveness of the roll controls relative to the effectiveness of the rudder. Boeing’s guidance for relieving a jammed rudder informed pilots only that they should use maximum force to overpower the jam and specifically warned pilots against turning off flight control switches “unless the faulty control was positively identified.” No additional guidance was provided about the effects of flight control switch selections on rudder jam conditions.
      - cdolan 6y ago
        If I start reading I go for hours haha. Am I correct that it inverted/reversed?
        sillysaurusx 6y ago
        Yes, but I'm not sure why it inverted. If you open the accident report (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...) and ctrl-F "rudder", you get 2,112 matches. So "reading for hours" is a distinct possibility in this case... (Oh, by the way, I didn't mean to imply you were mistaken, or anything like that. I was just so shocked that a plane's controls could invert themselves in any conceivable circumstance. Currently digging through the accident report to try to figure out what happened.) "the probable cause of the USAir flight 427 accident was a loss of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its blowdown limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a result of a jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and overtravel of the primary slide" Unfortunately I don't know what most of these terms mean. It sounds like it might be saying "they moved the rudder to its limit, and then it jammed at the limit; so when they tried to command the rudder to go the other way, the rudder was pointed in the opposite direction of the control inputs." But I'm really not sure.
- bigbob2 6y ago
  In that case maybe I'll give it 50 years to develop the same safety record.
- Analemma_ 6y ago
  The original 737 wasn't broken-by-design in the way the Max is. The Max _requires_ software kludges to paper over its deliberate mistakes; that's very different from just having a few bugs to work out in a fundamentally sound design.
  - HPsquared 6y ago
    This is a bit of an urban myth that keeps flying around. The plane is perfectly stable without MCAS, but would have had different handling characteristics than the previous version. The purpose of MCAS was to modify the handling to match the previous plane, so pilots' type ratings would carry over with minimal retraining. At its heart, it was a (poorly implemented) kludge in an attempt to sidestep a lot of paperwork.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      You're mostly right, but it wasn't just to make it handle like the previous versions, it was to satisfy FAA certification rules on how it handled.
      - cjbprime 6y ago
        This is my understanding too, though Boeing hasn't really come out and said it definitively. Specifically: > MCAS was devised to fulfill an airworthiness certification condition in 14 CFR 25.173 and 14 CFR 25.175. In high angle-of-attack (AoA) flight configuration, it is required that stick force/g (the stick force necessary to produce (hold) an incremental normal acceleration of 1g) and stick movement/g (ditto mutatis mutandis) must increase (or at least not decrease) with an increase in AoA (thanks to Clive Leyman for this formulation). I understand that in flight test, in which “wind-up turns” were conducted (a turn with increasing angle of bank; an increasing angle of bank means ceteris paribus increasing AoA), this condition was not fulfilled. -- https://abnormaldistribution.org/index.php/2019/04/30/ieee-spectrum-on-possible-software-involvement-in-two-recent-airliner-crashes/ https://abnormaldistribution.org/index.php/2019/04/30/ieee-s...
      - Stierlitz 6y ago
- salawat 6y ago
  The issue isn't a really a physical one in principle here. It's an issue of corporate accountability. You had corners cut to deliver a product that ended up killing people. There is no real room for doubt in that just from the material we have available. So, what? What happens? What should happen? Everything go back to "normal"? Let the same people who ran things continue to profit off their wrongdoing? Accept that as long as you're one of only two rides in town that you have the security to deliver and recover from delivering a lethal product? That's the issue. That's the reality we're taking out of this. It isn't even self-regulating anymore. There is no bankruptcy, no hammer, no reallocation of assets to those that can wield them more responsibly, no reset. Just a token gesture. The same Goliath just shrugs and moves on. While I get that might be tenable or desirable to some, I'm not one of them. Realistic risk of falling flat on your face, being held to account, and not being able to just shrug it off and keep going keeps you honest. Once you lose that, "What's a life here and there? Doesn't bother me. Can't make an onelette without cracking a few eggs." The economy is not an omelette, and people are not eggs. Either we serve it, or it serves us. I know which side of that assertion I'm on.
  - skybrian 6y ago
    The CEO resigned, so it's questionable whether there are the same people running things. How much other management changed?
    - windthrown 6y ago
      The replacement CEO was previously the chairman of the board. So while they did change personnel, I am skeptical about how different their actual management practices are.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    What alternative would you propose? You can't just remove Boeing as a company: they have tens of thousands of existing aircraft in the field that need to be maintained, and a large number of people who were not at fault in all of this whose jobs would be eliminated. So how do you hold the proper people accountable without doing so much collateral damage that the cost of that outweighs the benefits? Also, responsibility doesn't just like with Boeing; the FAA certified the 737 MAX, and the rules that allowed that to happen were written by lawmakers and bureaucrats over a period of decades. How do you hold all of them accountable? Many, if not most, of those people aren't even actively working any more.
selectodude 6y ago
A new plane design takes years from inception to first revenue flight. Early development of the 787 started in 2003, first revenue flight wasn't until 2011. And then we all remember when it spent a couple months grounded in 2013.
_ph_ 6y ago
Considering that a new design would take like 10 years to get into production, how would that have been an immediate solution for Boeing? They need to be able to sell more 737 until a new design is ready, and no one wants that to be rushed. While I didn't hear anyting about a new design, I sincerely hope they are at it already though.
- brianwawok 6y ago
  Can they not make more of the previous design? Or is 100% of production capacity 737 max
  - topspin 6y ago
    > Can they not make more of the previous design? MAX exists as a response to competition. One may assume the previous design is no longer competitive. And no, the body count isn't being considered; fuel efficiency, capacity and leveraging existing training are among the considerations.
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    I don't think previous iterations of the 737 were fundamentally safer. As there were probably other changes done to the 737 Max beyond the different engines, like improving the overall build, I do think that the fixed 737 Max should be safer than any other 737. The issue with the Max was, that a software, which should improve the handling in extreme situations, kicked in in normal conditions and the pilots failed to handle this (runaway stabilizer procedure). And indeed, the software for the MCAS was really badly designed, which has been fixed now and by now every 737 pilot should be aware how the two crashes could have been prevented by the right crew reaction. Both of this should mean that these accidents won't happen again.
    - l33tman 6y ago
      That's true but the lingering issue is that if Boeing and the FAA collaborated in pushing the broken design through certification, how many other issues can and will they cover up that the pilots don't know about? I think most want this systematic problem to get fixed as well, the MCAS at this point is as you say hopefully solved..
ogre_codes 6y ago
Most people don't know what manufacturer of the aircraft they are flying in, let alone the specific model. I haven't flown in quite a while, but when I did I didn't research what model aircraft I was flying in. I doubt more than a small handful of people do.
- awslattery 6y ago
  Plenty of airlines list it at time of booking, and is often accessible alongside digital boarding passes. I specifically chose a return option from Japan last year because it was on a 787.
zhte415 6y ago
Yes. Taking a 10-15 year timeframe from Boeing publicly signalling intention in 2011 that would mean the new aircraft would have gone to market in early to mid 2020s. Perhaps no one in sufficient interests in Boeing read Irrational Exuberance [1] which covered in a decent amount of detail about downturns +/- 2 years of every decade, always the same root cause if different symptoms. Or perhaps they did but were 'maximising shareholder value' (with a 3 month window on the share price) and didn't care - "this time it's different" after all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Exuberance_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Exuberance_(book)
myrandomcomment 6y ago
Why? It's now one of the most tested planes in the sky from a review standpoint?
greeneggs 6y ago
Given Boeing's recent problems, I would be much happier on an old design that has been well tested, than on a brand-new design.
- landemva 6y ago
  They crammed big engines under the wings in a way that it could really need a new air type certification. This is more like a new plane, with the baggage of the old 737 and without the certification testing for a new plane. Yes it can fly, but it's pushing the boundaries of safety.
tourdownunder 6y ago
It would have been a great time for pilots to be training on the the 737 Max as a different aircraft. The mistake with the 737 Max is that it is a simulator for pilots flying like it was a regular 737. The selling point to not have to train the pilots was the big mistake with the design.
- BillinghamJ 6y ago
  That intention led to choices in the physical design which are less safe than they otherwise would have been. So although giving dedicated training presumably would be better than nothing, that doesn't absolve this aircraft of the significant concerns about its fundamental suitability due to the decision making approach

cj 6y ago

Not just timing, but COVID is a great diversion from the safety issue entirely (in the eyes of the public) Anyone walking onto an aircraft today is thinking "I hope I don't get a virus" instead of "I hope my plane doesn't crash".

cupofcoffee 6y ago
>Anyone walking onto an aircraft today is thinking "I hope I don't get a virus" instead of "I hope my plane doesn't crash". Why would you think that?

pengaru 6y ago

COVID has been a godsend to many struggling or otherwise unstable businesses. Recent example I've had to deal with: Morgan Stanley's acquisition of E-Trade has completely wrecked their customer service experience. Live chat wait times are 2+ hours, getting a secure message response takes 5 days now. Their web site is covered with COVID-19 disclaimers for all the trouble, with a minor blurb about "operational shift". As they say; Never let a good crisis go to waste.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
COVID is the new 9/11. You could blame anything on 9/11... "Wifi is down, due to 9/11"
- ChrisRR 6y ago
  I've seen people blame practically everything about the PS5 launch on covid "No stock? Must be covid causing manufacturing issues." What? You don't know the sales figures at all and you're making wild assumptions

frogblast 6y ago

Covid’s timing was devastating for Boeing and the 737 Max. When the planes were grounded, Boeing kept producing them assuming the issue would be resolved quickly. As of January 2020, slightly before Covid, they had 400 planes built, but not delivered to customers (and so customers haven’t paid for them). Boeing was funding these aircraft with debt. All of a sudden, demand for air travel drops off a cliff. All those airlines now decide “I’m just not going to take delivery of those aircraft”. Which also means “I’m not going to pay for them”. Had the timing gone in the other order, all of those aircraft would have been delivered, and paid for, and airlines would have been holding the bag. (and the covid crisis would have limited the damages airlines could claim, and thus demand from Boeing, if they could meet their reduced schedules with other aircraft).

FeistyOtter 6y ago
Can an airline really refuse an aircraft without wasting some significant amount of money? I assume the airline or leasing company start paying from the moment they place an order all the way through construction, finished by a final payment at the moment of acceptance? When one orders a building company to build a house, you are given a payment schedule, I assume it is the same with airplanes.
- corty 6y ago
  Airlines on the brink of bancruptcy have to refuse such orders, even if it only saves small amounts of money. And due to Corona, virtually every airline is in financially troubled waters.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  Airliners are paid over a period yes, from the contract signature to several months after delivery. But the biggest chunk of cash changes hands at delivery.
danielfoster 6y ago
This is true. I at least hope Boeing was able to reduce the compensation it will pay to airlines. There’s no lost income for airlines if there’s no demand for travel! Low oil prices have also not helped the situation. Airlines need fuel efficient aircraft less than ever right now.

dotancohen 6y ago

> The airlines slowdown due to COVID likely gave them some > serious breathing room while they got their shit together. Though I agree with you, Boeing could have really used the time to properly train 737 type pilots on the MCAS-specific issues. But the whole purpose of MCAS was to not retrain pilots, so instead of those pilot spending the past half year training on the new system, they spent the past half year mostly grounded.

kayfox 6y ago
Training pilots before a training program is approved is kinda like throwing money into a fire. They would still have to turn around and train them again with the approved training. Also, being has little to do with the actual decisions on what and how to train pilots not employed by them, the airlines develop training programs that are approved by the FAA and operated with FAA oversight.

ThinkBeat 6y ago

Boeing is stuck with a enormous amount of completes airplanes That nobody wants or can afford. A lot (maybe most) airlines are struggling to survive with the impact of the pandemic on travel. A lot of banks that have lent money to airlines have their security in part in the airplanes. Some countries are pumping money into particular airlines to try to keep them from bankruptcy As more and more airlines news to shed aircraft and employees the market is or will be flooded with used aircraft. Possibly some can be considered converted for freight if the market stays strong there https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/07/25/see-the-boeing-737-max-pile-up-in-storage-in-these-time-lapse-satellite-images/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-737-max-cancellations-continue-as-airline-downturn-shuts-off-jet-orders/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/b...

yread 6y ago

MAX is a lot more efficient than the old NGs or classics (and can also do routes of 757s or 767s if they are thin enough). In a time of reduced demand airlines would prefer to park their more fuel-hungry planes and use the more efficient ones. But they can't because it's grounded. And now there are airlines failing left and right with their planes going on the second hand market, back to lessors or are gutted for parts. That's depressing the price of airplanes and spare parts. That can't be good for Boeing either. Would you buy a 15% more efficient car for twice as much?