10 ms·
Boeing Needs an Act of Congress or Something Worse to Get Max 7 and 10 Flying
- bombcar 4y agoI'm not sure "bolt on some new thing and this will work just fine we swear" is the way to go with the MAX 10 after what happened to the MAX 8.
- andrewia 4y agoBut in this case the "new thing" is a warning system that is found in almost all modern planes. It's not new to Boeing or its pilots, is an industry standard, and doesn't require novel engineering practices. It sounds like Boeing painted itself into a corner once again (this time with the Southwest orders), and doesn't want to eat the engineering/certification cost to get out "the right way" by implementing this system in its existing avionics. Boeing should feel the consequences of its actions, including lost profits, and play by the rules.
- hakfoo 4y agoThe scale of sunk-cost fallacy here just seems comical. Assuming you didn't want to just scrap or major-refit the planes entirely, presumably the right answer was to back away from the "We'll make it the same type rating." Then you can probably discard the MCAS system, which regardless of its technical merits is a hopelessly damaged brand. I get that there was some financial penalty attached to that strategy, but I have to imagine they long ago sailed past that cost in settlements, reputational damage, and cancelled orders. It's not like this is going to buy back their reputation either. People don't want to see legal loopholes and "here's a patch fix you can bolt on the side and it really fixes it, we're sure, honest, trust us." They want some obvious and grand gesture to help restore trust, like "we're ripping out the Fly Into The Ocean mechanism and retraining every pilot that walks within three kilometres of these planes at our own colossal expense." Of course, my opinion of Boeing has been undermined since mid-Pandemic; they have a factory nearby and every day there was a huge cluster of employees protesting the vaccination mandates. At this point, I'd feel more confident in an Tupolev product.
- bombcar 4y agoThe original post had numbers, it seems they could probably swing a deal with Southwest to cancel the tiny one (who knows, subsidize fuel for them or something) but the big one is going to be harder to satisfy the contracts without cost. Someone deep in the bowels of Boeing is running the numbers, I assure you - and right now the cheapest option is "get the FAA to let them run without this thing" but once that window closes the next cheapest may be "add the thing" or it may be "negotiate with the airlines with purchase orders to do something" which could include offering to up-train pilots on type, paying cancellation fees, who knows. And as long as the first option is open, they'll argue that it's the only possible option.
- olliej 4y agoSure am glad that they saved all the money /s Also I still don't understand why the executive board of Boeing aren't in jail (I mean I "know", in the sense that they're rich and so the laws don't apply to them, I just don't understand why that still works even in such blatant cases of deliberate mass murder)
- cde-v 4y agoJust peacefully protest about it, that generally solves all problems.
- inetknght 4y agoI recognize your sarcasm but many might not. Sarcasm doesn't fit well on the internet in general and is against HN rules ;)
- GartzenDeHaes 4y agoFriends don't put friends in jail.
- rafaelturk 4y agoIt's never too late to reverse a bad decision - Max series is and remains a low bar airplane; we all know why: Marketing took over engineering. Accept the problem, scrap it and move on.
- stickfigure 4y agoYou make it sound like trading in a car rather than retraining thousands of pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel. Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in some professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to an opinion on this.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoWell certainly the people killed by these planes are also entitled to an opinion, but I guess there's survivorship bias in play in the market of opinions.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- MilStdJunkie 4y agoAs a producer of civilian airframes and a major military contractor, Boeing has discovered a way to cut out the middlemen and kill all the civilians directly. Boeing: "the Next Hundred Years".
- Someone1234 4y ago> retraining thousands of pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel. That ship has largely already sailed after the 737 Max crashes.
- kodah 4y agoRegular people boarded the Max 8 and regular people will have board the Max 7 and Max 10. Unless of course, only aviation industry professionals fly on the Max 7 and 10s.
- 4y ago
- greesil 4y agoThere was a pretty good documentary recently on how Boeing got to where it is now. https://www.netflix.com/us/title/81272421 https://www.netflix.com/us/title/81272421
- goldcd 4y agoIt's excellent. Had only been vaguely following the details, but more you learn the angrier you get.
- grepfru_it 4y agoI’ve stopped flying southwest because of this
- spoonjim 4y agoI still won’t fly a Boeing MAX. Literally refused to do a business meeting in person and just did it over Zoom because the only sensible flight was on a MAX.
- BitwiseFool 4y agoEven if multiple independent sources deem the MAX safe after modifications, I will won't want to fly on one. Part of me wants to punish Boeing, even if the impact is minuscule in the grand scheme of things.
- linuxftw 4y agoThe software solution was to disable MCAS if sensors disagreed by more than X. The FAA didn't release any data on how many flights landed successfully with MCAS disabled, nor did they address the scenario really at all in their report. Instead of using actual numbers, the FAA used Boeing-speak along the lines of "MCAS only activates in very rare scenarios." Not quantified whatsoever, just vague turn of phrase. If MCAS only activates in very rare scenarios, then why have it at all? And if it's necessary in these scenarios, how safe is the aircraft if it's disabled?
- technofiend 4y agoThe booking tool my company gives us to book flights shows equipment for each flight. I avoid the MAX as well, even if it's inconvenient. Not to the point of cancelling travel as you have, but only because I haven't yet had to as there are many options for my particular pair of airports. Reputational loss is something companies manage as a risk and in this case IMHO Boeing should take the loss on a redesign to regain reputation and trust in their product. Because if they don't people like you and me will continue to avoid some of their airframes.
- grepfru_it 4y agothe md-10 had cargo doors that did not close properly. People continued to fly them. If the max planes are regulated to budget airlines due to the new low cost, you think people will still boycott it. History says otherwise
- elromulous 4y agoIt should come as no surprise that Boeing is simply motivated by money at every turn and nothing else. No individual is ever held personally liable in the US for cases like these (vs e.g diesel gate in Europe). And the fines against the company are a joke at best.
- chrisseaton 4y ago> It should come as no surprise that Boeing is simply motivated by money at every turn and nothing else. That's just a normal company.
- 317070 4y agoIf I understand OP well, normal companies are fortunately still bounded by laws on criminal negligence. People working for most companies also avoid that the situation gets so bad that they risk becoming personally liable.
- chrisseaton 4y ago> normal companies are fortunately still bounded by laws on criminal negligence ...because it's bad for money to break them. Money is still the motivation.
- parminya 4y agoSo why not just reinterpret the original comment so it survives, and take it to highlight the difference between a rule-of-law legal system that punishes rich companies who break the law until it has motivated law-following behavior, and a corrupt legal system that does not punish rich companies who break the law enough to motivate law-following behavior. I don't think the balance between Europe and the US has always been in Europe's favor, so it's not like there's no capacity to improve.
- noahtallen 4y agoIt’s the fatal flaw of capitalism: any time X is actually more important than making money, companies (especially public ones) cannot focus on X above all else. (A great example is health companies, where human health and well-being is the most important variable, but often conflicts with making money.)
- nimbius 4y agoJust the fact that Irkut (Russian) and Comac (Chinese) have competitor aircraft not only taking orders but in the skies should be enough to get most of the octogenarians in congress to give Americas flagship aircraft manufacturer a green light to sell whatever it wants during a global recession. it does nothing however to ameliorate the fact that most of the original 737 buyers who were grounded have moved on to Airbus or variant Boeings with a less haunted track record.
- mnd999 4y agoWhy? That’s what sanctions are for.
- kashunstva 4y ago> to give Americas flagship aircraft manufacturer a green light to sell whatever it wants during a global recession. Irrespective of Boeing’s egregious safety lapses? I think not.
- pcurve 4y agoDumb question. Can they just move back the engine and make the landing gears longer by making them retractable?
- kashunstva 4y ago> make the landing gears longer by making them retractable? The entire 737 series is already comprised of retractable gear aircraft.
- andrewia 4y agoI'm assuming they meant "extendable". In which case the longest MAX model already did this, but it was avoided by other models due to engineering cost. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/71500/why-wasnt-the-737-maxs-landing-gear-lengthened-enough-to-mount-the-engines-und https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/71500/why-wasnt...
- andrewia 4y agohttps://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/71500/why-wasnt-the-737-maxs-landing-gear-lengthened-enough-to-mount-the-engines-und https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/71500/why-wasnt... TL;DR that adds engineering complexity and/or would trigger redesigns of other components. The MAX 8 was supposed to be an economical refresh - a stopgap until the Y1/"New Midsize Airplane" was ready. (The sales/economic failure of the Y1 "787 Dreamliner" means the Y1 project is paused while Boeing waits for next generation technology to become available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project )
- theYipster 4y agoThe economic troubles of the 787 have nothing to do with the technology applied. It’s due to how Boeing managed the program. The A350 employs the same technology and is an economic success.
- fmajid 4y agoHere's a scathing paper by a Boeing engineer on how the Dreamliner project's emphasis on outsourcing was an utter fiasco: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ziggyworks/coolstuff/BoeingOutsourcing-2014130646.pdf https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ziggyworks/coolstuff/Boei...
- jaywalk 4y agoI understand (and agree with) all of the "fuck Boeing!" sentiment here, but look at this situation from a purely logical perspective: Every 737 flying today, including the two already-certified MAX variants, does not have EICAS. If it's such a massive safety concern, then why are they still allowed to fly? Of course, it's not a massive safety concern. EICAS is great, and requiring it in future aircraft is a good thing, but aircraft without it are still safe. The additional two years given from the law passing until the requirement would go into effect were basically to allow the MAX 7 and 10 to be certified without EICAS. And in all practical likelihood, Congress will give Boeing an extension to allow them to be certified without EICAS in 2023. There's really no reason not to, aside from "fuck Boeing."
- mrtweetyhack 4y ago