7 ms·

It wasn't Boeing that was trying to save money themselves- it was Boeing trying to save airlines money. There are hundreds of thousands of people today who can

It wasn't Boeing that was trying to save money themselves- it was Boeing trying to save airlines money. There are hundreds of thousands of people today who can fly a 737, and mechanics who can fix a 737, etc. The airlines wanted to get the better fuel efficiency from modern engines on a plane that everyone already knew how to fly and fix. Boeing actually started with a clean sheet design, tried to pitch it to airlines, the airlines didn't bite, so Boeing gave them what they wanted- the same plane but more fuel efficient. It was a huge fiasco, but it was about leveraging the advantage Boeing had in users, not saving on development costs.

KerrAvon 4y ago
“Give us a 737 but more crashy” is also not what their customers really wanted. There were surely more possibilities available than just the two extremes of “737 but crashes more” and “tiny Concorde.”
- Aloha 4y ago
  Had the software worked as intended, no one would have noticed.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    That's the problem - it's not clear to me that it could have worked as intended. But you can easily get that impression in high level meetings I imagine.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      I think it could have, but perhaps without the safety factors needed, because of insufficient redundancy in the AOA sensors.
- tadfisher 4y ago
  American Airlines ordered 130 330neos and 100 "re-engined 737s" while Boeing was still pitching their "smaller 787" design. Note that this was the first time AA had ever ordered a non-Boeing plane. Everything stems from Boeing taking this deal. Within the constraints of the 737 type certification: more efficient engines are larger, larger engines must move forward, forward engines change flight characteristics, flight characteristics must be augmented to maintain certification. So you are correct that Boeing had choices other than "crashy 737", but that choice was between throwing billions away to Airbus and the crashy 737.

KerrAvon 4y ago

“Give us a 737 but more crashy” is also not what their customers really wanted. There were surely more possibilities available than just the two extremes of “737 but crashes more” and “tiny Concorde.”

Aloha 4y ago
Had the software worked as intended, no one would have noticed.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  That's the problem - it's not clear to me that it could have worked as intended. But you can easily get that impression in high level meetings I imagine.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    I think it could have, but perhaps without the safety factors needed, because of insufficient redundancy in the AOA sensors.
tadfisher 4y ago
American Airlines ordered 130 330neos and 100 "re-engined 737s" while Boeing was still pitching their "smaller 787" design. Note that this was the first time AA had ever ordered a non-Boeing plane. Everything stems from Boeing taking this deal. Within the constraints of the 737 type certification: more efficient engines are larger, larger engines must move forward, forward engines change flight characteristics, flight characteristics must be augmented to maintain certification. So you are correct that Boeing had choices other than "crashy 737", but that choice was between throwing billions away to Airbus and the crashy 737.