8 ms·

Seems like the Boeing 737 MAX series of planes can’t catch a break especially after what happened in 2019. Unless—how often does an airline company ground a pa

by usui 3y ago

Seems like the Boeing 737 MAX series of planes can’t catch a break especially after what happened in 2019. Unless—how often does an airline company ground a particular model?

Dalewyn 3y ago
It's Boeing that can't catch a break. Starliner? Delays and cancellations. KC-46? That POS still isn't reliably refueling, and if I understand correctly USAF is rumored to be looking for a replacement. F-15EX? It can't use conformal fuel tanks the F-15E has been using for almost 40 bloody years. No, that means it can't achieve its major selling point of carrying 22 missiles either. 737 MAX? Clearly maximum kek given this and that whole comedy about safety exemptions yesterday. I want to like Boeing, but I feel it's justifiable to tell them to go fuck themselves at this point. EDIT: I also forgot that V-22 Osprey that crashed into the sea off Japan back in November, killing all on board. As far as I'm aware, that led to a complete grounding of all Ospreys by all US military branches and also the JSDF pending investigation findings.
- KolmogorovComp 3y ago
  You’ve forgotten the numerous delays for the 777X
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    I forgot 777X was even a thing.
    - sitkack 3y ago
      It is a beautiful and very quiet plane. I saw it do a close approach over the beach in Seattle last summer. https://blog.geaerospace.com/technology/second-boeing-777x-makes-first-flight-powered-by-ge9x/ https://blog.geaerospace.com/technology/second-boeing-777x-m...
- atoav 3y ago
  The number one reason the planes start to have issues is essentially a lack of effective oversight. Not sure how much blame boeing gets for this, but this is a prime example for a certain amount of effective regulation having a positive impact on the safety culture within a corporation. The MAX should never have been accepted as being the same airframe as the original 737.
  - oivey 3y ago
    I agree that a lack of oversight is a core issue, but it also isn’t the job of the government to make your products good. The government can set same rules, but it’s on Boeing to execute. Of course, besides that, Boeing itself is maybe THE major force reducing oversight.
    - umactually1 3y ago
      > but it also isn’t the job of the government to make your products good A century of progress in domestic automotive sector would disagree with your opinion, here. If it wasn't for the gub'ment infringing on the liberties of the little guys (corporations), we'd still be driving cars without airbags, seatbelts, and proper fuel tank safety regulations.
      - oivey 3y ago
        I think we’re in agreement on that. I wasn’t saying that regulations shouldn’t exist. I was saying that if Boeing makes shitty products that kill people, then it is entirely their fault if they go out of business. The person I was replying to seemed to be shuffling some of the onus onto the government. I think it’s to a significant degree the government’s fault that air travel wasn’t safe and people got killed, but it is entirely Boeing’s fault that their products suck and kill people and are losing them money.
        midasuni 3y ago
        Why would they go out of business? Unless of course they are actually banned from flying death traps. Besides, Boeing as the only US aircraft manufacturer is too big to fail, especially with China aircraft increasing in number globally.
- exo762 3y ago
  Brain drain caused by SpaceX? (shooting in the dark here)
- somerandomqaguy 3y ago
  Even funnier because Boeing tried being cute with the Canadian aerospace industry, and instead shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun. Boeing tried to screw Canada's Bombardier out of the C series aircraft by getting the US Gov to throw on tariffs for an aircraft they had no competitor for. Everything was already done AFAIK that point too; certifications, and everything, the plane was entering into production to fufill US airline orders. It cost $1.3 billion Canadian to develop the plane. I suspect Boeing thought that'd be the end of it. Airbus had other ideas. They got the whole Bombardier C series aircraft for about $550 million and opened an assembly plant in Alabama in Mobile, about 350 miles from Boeing's assembly plant in Huntsville. Along with the orders from US airlines (I think for 130 aircraft). No more tariffs because these planes are now US made. As a Canadian it stings a little, but I can't help but cackle at the fact that Boeing execs handed their one major competitor several billion in revenue on a silver platter. And Boeing will need years if not decades to come up with a competitor. So from Canada: Get fucked sideways Boeing.
  - ahartmetz 3y ago
    Sad for Canada and Bombardier, but good for the plane: With Airbus's money, marketing, stability and reputation, the amount of planes made will, I think, be a multiple of what it would have been with Bombardier. It's a really good plane, too. Comfy, efficient, reliable so far. And a spectacular own goal for Boeing that they deserved so much :D
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - light_hue_1 3y ago
    This version of the story is too generous to Bombardier who really screwed up the development of the CS100/A220. Even if Boeing hadn't done anything they would have needed many more bailouts from the government to get anywhere. Development costs doubled from 2 billion to 4 billion. Then when they went well over 5 billion and the federal government + Quebec had to bail them out to the tune of 1.5+ billion. Even without Boeing, had Airbus not stepped in, it's unlikely the CS100 would have succeeded. European buyers had already started to cancel orders seeing the debacle unfold. Despite having many orders on the books, banks refused to lend to Bombardier because they expected them to make a loss on the airplane. So yeah, screw Boeing who played really dirty and Trump helped them (the tariffs were reversed a year later when a more independent body reviewed them). But had Bombardier not been in a massive financial hole this wouldn't have mattered.
- hef19898 3y ago
  KC-46: The USAF had Airbus tankers on order, before Boeing sued and the cinzract was, surprise, awarded to Boeing again. So the USAF and Boeing share equal blame here. I have to read up on the F-15EX, generally so these kinds of upgrades are basically new designs and as such prone to delays and a bunch of technical issues. Especially for military aircraft. Nothing to add on the MAX that wasn't said already. Boeing sure has its work cut out developing a new version, the existing 737 design is beyond its design life by now. Well, if a plane crashes for unonown reasons, it is quite normal to ground the fleet, nothing special about Boeig here.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    USAF was (and I suspect still is, given KC-46) happy to go with Airbus, it was GAO[1][2] who intervened alleging corruption and mishandling to give Boeing the platter instead. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Offi... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Thanks for reminding me, this is such old history facts get fuzzy in my memory. Not to say that Airbus military plane record is spot less, but the A330 MRTT seems to be a decent plane. I hate to see Boeing having all these problems, most of which are totally unnecessary.

by usui 3y ago

Seems like the Boeing 737 MAX series of planes can’t catch a break especially after what happened in 2019. Unless—how often does an airline company ground a particular model?

Dalewyn 3y ago

It's Boeing that can't catch a break. Starliner? Delays and cancellations. KC-46? That POS still isn't reliably refueling, and if I understand correctly USAF is rumored to be looking for a replacement. F-15EX? It can't use conformal fuel tanks the F-15E has been using for almost 40 bloody years. No, that means it can't achieve its major selling point of carrying 22 missiles either. 737 MAX? Clearly maximum kek given this and that whole comedy about safety exemptions yesterday. I want to like Boeing, but I feel it's justifiable to tell them to go fuck themselves at this point. EDIT: I also forgot that V-22 Osprey that crashed into the sea off Japan back in November, killing all on board. As far as I'm aware, that led to a complete grounding of all Ospreys by all US military branches and also the JSDF pending investigation findings.

KolmogorovComp 3y ago
You’ve forgotten the numerous delays for the 777X
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I forgot 777X was even a thing.
  - sitkack 3y ago
    It is a beautiful and very quiet plane. I saw it do a close approach over the beach in Seattle last summer. https://blog.geaerospace.com/technology/second-boeing-777x-makes-first-flight-powered-by-ge9x/ https://blog.geaerospace.com/technology/second-boeing-777x-m...
atoav 3y ago
The number one reason the planes start to have issues is essentially a lack of effective oversight. Not sure how much blame boeing gets for this, but this is a prime example for a certain amount of effective regulation having a positive impact on the safety culture within a corporation. The MAX should never have been accepted as being the same airframe as the original 737.
- oivey 3y ago
  I agree that a lack of oversight is a core issue, but it also isn’t the job of the government to make your products good. The government can set same rules, but it’s on Boeing to execute. Of course, besides that, Boeing itself is maybe THE major force reducing oversight.
  - umactually1 3y ago
    > but it also isn’t the job of the government to make your products good A century of progress in domestic automotive sector would disagree with your opinion, here. If it wasn't for the gub'ment infringing on the liberties of the little guys (corporations), we'd still be driving cars without airbags, seatbelts, and proper fuel tank safety regulations.
    - oivey 3y ago
      I think we’re in agreement on that. I wasn’t saying that regulations shouldn’t exist. I was saying that if Boeing makes shitty products that kill people, then it is entirely their fault if they go out of business. The person I was replying to seemed to be shuffling some of the onus onto the government. I think it’s to a significant degree the government’s fault that air travel wasn’t safe and people got killed, but it is entirely Boeing’s fault that their products suck and kill people and are losing them money.
      - midasuni 3y ago
        Why would they go out of business? Unless of course they are actually banned from flying death traps. Besides, Boeing as the only US aircraft manufacturer is too big to fail, especially with China aircraft increasing in number globally.
exo762 3y ago
Brain drain caused by SpaceX? (shooting in the dark here)
somerandomqaguy 3y ago
Even funnier because Boeing tried being cute with the Canadian aerospace industry, and instead shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun. Boeing tried to screw Canada's Bombardier out of the C series aircraft by getting the US Gov to throw on tariffs for an aircraft they had no competitor for. Everything was already done AFAIK that point too; certifications, and everything, the plane was entering into production to fufill US airline orders. It cost $1.3 billion Canadian to develop the plane. I suspect Boeing thought that'd be the end of it. Airbus had other ideas. They got the whole Bombardier C series aircraft for about $550 million and opened an assembly plant in Alabama in Mobile, about 350 miles from Boeing's assembly plant in Huntsville. Along with the orders from US airlines (I think for 130 aircraft). No more tariffs because these planes are now US made. As a Canadian it stings a little, but I can't help but cackle at the fact that Boeing execs handed their one major competitor several billion in revenue on a silver platter. And Boeing will need years if not decades to come up with a competitor. So from Canada: Get fucked sideways Boeing.
- ahartmetz 3y ago
  Sad for Canada and Bombardier, but good for the plane: With Airbus's money, marketing, stability and reputation, the amount of planes made will, I think, be a multiple of what it would have been with Bombardier. It's a really good plane, too. Comfy, efficient, reliable so far. And a spectacular own goal for Boeing that they deserved so much :D
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- light_hue_1 3y ago
  This version of the story is too generous to Bombardier who really screwed up the development of the CS100/A220. Even if Boeing hadn't done anything they would have needed many more bailouts from the government to get anywhere. Development costs doubled from 2 billion to 4 billion. Then when they went well over 5 billion and the federal government + Quebec had to bail them out to the tune of 1.5+ billion. Even without Boeing, had Airbus not stepped in, it's unlikely the CS100 would have succeeded. European buyers had already started to cancel orders seeing the debacle unfold. Despite having many orders on the books, banks refused to lend to Bombardier because they expected them to make a loss on the airplane. So yeah, screw Boeing who played really dirty and Trump helped them (the tariffs were reversed a year later when a more independent body reviewed them). But had Bombardier not been in a massive financial hole this wouldn't have mattered.
hef19898 3y ago
KC-46: The USAF had Airbus tankers on order, before Boeing sued and the cinzract was, surprise, awarded to Boeing again. So the USAF and Boeing share equal blame here. I have to read up on the F-15EX, generally so these kinds of upgrades are basically new designs and as such prone to delays and a bunch of technical issues. Especially for military aircraft. Nothing to add on the MAX that wasn't said already. Boeing sure has its work cut out developing a new version, the existing 737 design is beyond its design life by now. Well, if a plane crashes for unonown reasons, it is quite normal to ground the fleet, nothing special about Boeig here.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  USAF was (and I suspect still is, given KC-46) happy to go with Airbus, it was GAO[1][2] who intervened alleging corruption and mishandling to give Boeing the platter instead. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Offi... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Thanks for reminding me, this is such old history facts get fuzzy in my memory. Not to say that Airbus military plane record is spot less, but the A330 MRTT seems to be a decent plane. I hate to see Boeing having all these problems, most of which are totally unnecessary.