13 ms·
Emirates’ Tim Clark says Boeing ‘not getting it’ on 737 Max, 787
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jjoonathan 6y agoThis is a natural consequence of too-big-to-fail. Boeing needs to be broken up.
- dageshi 6y agoGenuine question, would anyone want to buy planes like this from a company that's small enough to fail? I'm guessing not.
- ivanstojic 6y agoI think the reverse of the question is also important: why would anyone want to fly on a plane made by such a colossal company that any blame for flaws (design/technical or decision process) is diluted to the point that hundreds of deaths result in no measurable punishment?
- fred_is_fred 6y agoYou generally don't have a choice - true you can see the type of plane when you book, but airlines swap them out all the time.
- bdamm 6y agoBesides, it's the regulatory environment and the reputation of the airline that provides most of the actual safety. Aircraft failures are in fact very rare. Even the 737 MAX is a profoundly safe aircraft compared to almost any car brand in terms of passenger miles, and usually by passenger minutes too.
- dageshi 6y agoI don't disagree. My point I guess is, if you're buying a plane that will potentially be in service for many decades you need some kind of reassurance the manufacturer will still be around to support it?
- ColFrancis 6y agoThe idea is that if it's small enough to fail, then the incentives are much stronger to avoid failure. If it's too big to fail, why would they put effort into avoiding failure? So yes, buying from a small enough to fail company could be seen as safer. Note that too big to fail, and small enough to fail has less to do with the size of the company and more to do with market position and government perception.
- break_the_bank 6y agoPlaying devils advocate. I’m guessing long term maintenance would be a concern when ones buying something as expensive as a plane. How do you trust a new small company with this?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ColFrancis 6y agoYes, it would. But right now the long term maintenance of the A380 is shaky despite Airbus still being around. Devils advocate to long term maintenance with a large company: they could just stop caring about you as a customer or refuse to support you. It's a difficult space to make decisions in and I think it's difficult to make any broad statements about reliability of product or company. Someone would need to actually run some numbers.
- asdff 6y agoMaybe they'd put effort into avoiding failure if we held decision makers liable for negligence when appropriate, rather than shielding them with the entire company employing thousands.
- bdamm 6y agoThere are dozens of small airplane manufacturers. Cessna nearly failed in the '90s, but they're doing fine today. They're still small enough to fail. Also there are bizjet manufacturers that could fail. Aircraft producers usually sell the right to own parts and service at a discount through chapter 11 work, so it's not like the parts and service aircraft need to keep flying vanish if the parent company fails. Usually. Companies like Pipistrel that are producing innovative aircraft are usually small enough to fail.
- dageshi 6y agoYeah I guess I wasn't really sure that would work with commercial airliners, given their probable lifespan/complexity. If the manufacturer goes out of business, who has the expertise to maintain the planes for the rest of their working life?
- bdamm 6y agoIn the United States, aviation mechanics are trained primarily to be generalists who can safely operate on any aircraft. Airline regulation may create specializations. The manufacturer needs to provide parts and certain highly specialized services (like rebuilding damaged wings, for example.) That parts and service supply is wrapped up in a "Type Certification Ownership". That type ownership is a valuable thing, because it's a guaranteed population of customers. Therefore, when aviation companies fail, the type ownership is auctioned off, and it will be bought.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sofixa 6y agoBombardier's C-series was just starting to sell well among big carriers (Delta) before the US sabotaged them to protect Boeing, which brought them to their knees, forced them to sell everything off and they probably won't survive the pandemic, so yes.
- musha68k 6y agoI'm not sure what you are implying with "too-big-to-fail" specifically? What if, even at a smaller size they manage to "distribute" responsibility enough so there is no one with actual "skin in the game" yet again? Just thinking about that, maybe it's both? A combination of little "skin in the game" and short sighted incentives ("budget efficiencies") that lead to a "lack of imagination"? How did NASA solve this problem after Columbia?
- nix0n 6y agoAs the last manufacturer of large passenger airplanes in the USA, Boeing's role in the US psyche and US economy is too big for the US government to let it fail. NASA, despite being part of the US government, faced a much larger risk of being shut down after Columbia (more so than Challenger, since the Cold War was over).
- musha68k 6y agoThat's an insightful perspective on the matter. Thanks for sharing. I wish Boeing could revive that old spirit of craftsmanship and safety above everything else.
- tablespoon 6y ago> This is a natural consequence of too-big-to-fail. Boeing needs to be broken up. Isn't Boeing the result of having many "small enough to fail" aerospace companies actually fail?
- ajmadesc 6y agoBeing bought isn't failing, it's falling prey to global financialization
- sudosysgen 6y agoYeah, pretty much. It's an industry where it's really hard to get a start, and if you survive at all you become too big to fail.
- marshmallow_12 6y ago-needs to be broken up not the best choice of wording. i'm sorry, that's all i can see.
- fooey 6y agoThe problem isn't their size, the problem is regulatory capture.
- the-dude 6y agohttps://archive.is/0HiYw https://archive.is/0HiYw
- dundarious 6y agoIf the intent was to circumvent the paywall at "Continue reading" (which is fair enough for The Air Current to do) then this archive.is link does not do that.
- bongoman37 6y ago737 Max fiasco was the first thing that actually made me look at which plane I might be flying on when booking tickets outside of the flights on the Airbus A380.
- jMyles 6y ago> outside of the flights on the Airbus A380 What do you mean by this part?
- jmercouris 6y agoThe A380 has not had a single incident.
- gspr 6y agoI'd say I'm in general biased in favor of Airbus, but what you say just isn't true.
- jhayward 6y agoOh, it's had incidents. Just not any fatal ones. The early Quantas Flight 32 engine failure [1] was quite severe and the plane was lucky to continue to fly, for instance. "a turbine disc in the aircraft's number-two engine (on the port side nearest the fuselage) was found to have disintegrated, causing extensive damage to the nacelle, wing, fuel system, landing gear, flight controls, and engine controls, and a fire in a fuel tank " [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32
- bdamm 6y agoIIRC they were unable to shut down the outboard engine after landing, and had to get the fire department to shoot water into the engine. They did not have control over the engine the entire flight, nor did they have full control over the ailerons. Few people can really appreciate how hard it is to land an airplane with partial controls.
- paulsutter 6y agoFortunately there is tremendous innovation in aerospace, just outside of Boeing Starship will be better for international flights (30 minutes to anywhere), and Boom Supersonic for shorter flights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 EDIT: Willing to make a bet with naysayers, email in profile (just fixed it, thanks)
- Someone1234 6y agoThis issue isn't about lack of innovation, if anything the inverse: Lack of safety during innovation.
- hinkley 6y agoI had a thought the other day that if Musk got in a time machine with a pile of money, how far back in time could he go and still build SpaceX? SpaceX can only do what they do because there is no human pilot on those test flights. I know that the Navy pilots argued and argued that you need a human on board but is that really true, or did that end up destroying the space program by making the cost of failure so impossibly high?
- di4na 6y agoThey had no pilot on board for most of the equivalent. Ariane had no pilot on board either for the whole program. So no. That is not the reason. Try again.
- kube-system 6y agoThe space race of the 60s had plenty of unmanned tests before they started manning them. Humans were not the first Earth creatures in space. If Musk wanted to go back further than maybe the 70s or 80s, his issues would have been: 1. the science hadn't been fully developed ahead of time 2. he would have had a harder time getting other people on board with his idea -- he would have been labelled a complete crackpot 3. governments may have not have been so willing to allow him to do it
- hinkley 6y agoI keep wondering how much longer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is gonna keep making airplane parts for other people before they decide to stop going white label on anything bigger than a regional jet.
- asdff 6y agoBecause this way it's Boeing getting the flak in the press
- hinkley 6y agoYou might be onto something there.
- markvdb 6y agoThat would be an extremely hard sell. Look at Bombardier. They built the CS300. Once it started to gain any traction, it was trade bombed by the US government. The CS300 is now the Airbus A220.
- lovemenot 6y agoWell let's wait and see if they can actually deliver the regional jet first. It's delays have been huge and are ongoing.
- jdmg94 6y agoI had to fly to get some official paperwork done, they tried to put me on a 737Max, fortunately they changed my flight at no cost
- afturkrull 6y ago"The wake up call of the Max was something that told them that all was not right." What exactly was the nature of this ""The wake up call"?
- bolangi 6y agoHere are gruesome, firsthand details about production and management problems with the 737NG in a documentary from Al Jazeera. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0 The following summary is my own: The whole story is shown in the first seconds: three aircraft encountering more force than a usual landing (such as a runway overrun). All three fuselages breaking into three parts in exactly the same two places! All three aircraft exactly eight years old. Aluminum members called chords run the length of the fuselage and around the circumference to make up the fuselage structure. The chords are joined to each other and to reinforcing surrounds for large openings like doors. Poorly fitting chords and bear plates around openings were redrilled when mounting holes were misplaced, reshaped and pounded with hammers in order to mate them. This weakened of the structure to below design margins. In addition excessive metal fatigue due to hand processing led to accelerated corrosion, likely causing structural failure in three eight-year-old NG aircraft that broke up on landing. The aircraft were engineered to survive an emergency landing intact and were designed for 30-year airframe life. More to the story as the government colluded with Boeing to cover these deficiencies and frustrate the actions (eventually lawsuits) by a team of whistleblowers. Basically, the subcontractor agreed to use computer controlled manufacturing processes, then did 90% of the work by hand. The resulting substandard parts were beaten into shape on Boeing's production line. Watching this, I can better understand a recent story on local TV about developments in the US airline industry. They forecast that many companies will using the the opportunity of the pandemic to retire older aircraft.
- mohaine 6y agoSmall Nit. Airplane expected life is normally rated in pressurization cycles, not years. It is how many times it takes off to normal flight and lands that really matter most for airframe lifetime so if the plane was flown more cycles than average, an 8 year life could be easily be the expected max.
- bolangi 6y agoThe source in this video, a former FAA inspector, gave figures in years rather than pressurization cycles.
- haltingproblem 6y agoBoeing has "culture" problems like a mangy stray dog has a flea problem. The dog and Boeing also have in common that both are blissfully unaware of their problems. However unlike Boeing, the dog does not blame imaginary ghosts of the past for its fleas. There is a notion that Boeing is (was) a company with an insanely great engineering culture. Their engineers lived in an idyllic culture of building amazing products while always putting public safety first. This great culture suffered under the merger with McDonnell Douglas [1], [2], [3]. This narrative further says that McDonnell had a mercenary profits at all cost management culture which infected the management of the combined entity. However Boeing's engineers tried to preserve their engineering ethos while living under this oppressive regime and continued building great and safe products. This argument is frequently put forth by ex-Boeing engineers. This is a naked apologia for Boeing's behavior which killed 346 people and endangered the lives of 1000s more and destroyed jobs/wealth around the world. So strong is the apologists conviction in the purity of Boeing's engineering culture that they ignore the fact that thousands of engineers worked on the 737 Max. Not a single engineer raised issues with the engineering of the aircraft. Not a single engineer wrote a blistering memo calling out its failing or quit in protest. They were all held in thrall, paralyzed and forced to go against their ethics, professionalism, decency by the power of this unholy culture forced upon them by McDonnell Douglas! Eventually, all stellar organizations, public or private, become complacent (e.g. Israeli Intelligence Failure, 1973, NASA by the 1980s). Boeing made an unstable plane which it then stablized with a dangerous MCAS to get it to market fast. They then topped it off by making the MCAS rely on a single sensor. They then made the dual-sensor an upgrade. An undergraduate engineering student with a basic course on probability can see that this is tailor-made for disaster. Boeing made an essential safety feature an upgrade!! But wait there is more. They then proceeded to hide this monstrosity from every regulator and airline on the planet. They insisted that the plane was no different in every aspect of its flight behavior than its predecessor which was over 30 years old and did not require additional safety training. Boeing had become so criminally blatant that the head of airline training at Lion Air inquired about extra training for the 737 Max and Boeing's test engineers rebuffed him. After the Lion Air crash, Boeing proceeded to cast aspersion on the safety practices of Lion Air. Lion Air had a spotty safety record in the past. In this case it was Boeing that rebuffed their requests for additional training because it would set a precedent for other airlines in SE Asia. When that lack of training became a factor in the crash during the investigation, Boeing proceeded to blame Lion Air. Chutzpah! Transcripts of messages released during the investigation show how Boeing employees worked in unison to ensure no extra simulator training was required. Folks, this is not a great engineering culture obsessed with safety but rather an organization trying to get away with as much as it can and then indulging in a coverup. We need to start accepting that whatever stellar engineering culture existed at Boeing is dead. We as a society need to stop scapegoating imaginary forces in the past and giving Boeing engineers a pass. Strong regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of Boeing Products. [1] https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led-to-the-737-max-crisis/ https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merg... [2] https://fortune.com/longform/boeing-737-max-crisis-shareholder-first-culture/ https://fortune.com/longform/boeing-737-max-crisis-sharehold... [3] https://www.perell.com/blog/boeing-737-max https://www.perell.com/blog/boeing-737-max
- medium_burrito 6y agoJust wait until the 787 "issues" with the composite fuselages start happening en masse.
- varispeed 6y agoI don't understand why such mergers are allowed. This is where capitalism falls apart as it is when it crosses the line between creating products to satisfy customers and chasing profit above all. These resulting giant companies become too big to fail, they lose accountability and they detach from their customers and mission. Then when these companies start having problems, they use money to buy themselves laws, exemptions and corrupt whatever and whoever they need to in order to stay afloat. I think they way to fix capitalism is to order companies going above certain threshold to split and never allow any mergers.
- ajmadesc 6y agoThe economic orthodoxy believes that consolidation > efficiency > reduced prices > consumer benefit > societal benefit No amount of empirical evidence to the contrary will disuade them because you don't understand the _science_
- morpheos137 6y agoActually that is not really economic orthodoxy unless you learn economics from CNBC or something. Real economists understand that monopoly, oligopoly often produces a suboptimal outcome. In order for capitalism to work competition has to exist. For Boeing the only competition is Airbus. We have been building jetliners from over half a century. Things like airframes failing after 8 years shouldn't be a thing...
- lamontcg 6y agoThis is more symptomatic of American Capitalism and its managerial class. Kill hundreds of people, get tens or hundreds of millions in parachute payments and stock and exit the company extraordinarily rich. Changing the leadership at the top of Boeing isn't going to change anything because the new leaders will be a product of the same society.
- morpheos137 6y agoBoeing is a prime example of the hazards of regulatory capture and "too big to fail." The way capitalism is supposed to work is if you mess up in a competitive market you are punished by the market. Further if you deviate from the industry standard of care, in a functioning legal system, you are sued by your customers / injured parties. Instead, in America, for at least the last 20 years there is no real penalty for messing up. The bigger the company the lighter the penalty. This will be the downfall of America. In the case of Boeing, it needs to be broken up. It needs to fail. There is no reason why America can not have 3 or even half a dozen competing jetliner manufacturers. That is how capitalism is supposed to work. In the case of online retail same story with Amazon. Marketing and shipping goods is something that is almost as old as trade itself. There is no reason we need to buy diapers from the same store that we buy an HD TV from. Healthy capitalism is supposed to be about competition and diversity of options where the best quality option rules out. It is not supposed to be about Wall Street or Fed fueled monopolies.
- sofixa 6y ago> There is no reason why America can not have 3 or even half a dozen competing jetliner manufacturers There is - it's an incredibly capital and know-how heavy business, with loooong lead times and huge risk. Just ask Bombardier - a company with plenty of aeronautical experience nearly went bankrupt developing the C-series ( which is a short haul airliner, so not even the most expensive), had to sell off everything they do, and the pandemic will probably finish them off.