38 ms·
FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s
- charles_f 3y agoThere was a comment on one of the other threads asking if FAA would be slow to react again. I'm glad they learned from the first incident on the same plane.
- ShakataGaNai 3y agoIf it's Boeing, I ain't going.
- rconti 3y ago(out the door, midair)
- intunderflow 3y agoAt least Airbus seems to be competent in building safe aircraft. I would not be surprised though if Boeing's sales drop if the US government brings in tariffs or etc to try and force companies to buy their flying coffins.
- asylteltine 3y agoThe A380 is the best plane ever made in the entirety of human history. It’s a damn shame it’s not used more. I’m hoping new fuel efficient engines make it viable again because there simply is NOTHING like first class on an A380.
- thecosmicfrog 3y agoIt's interesting how so many people sounded the death knell on the A380 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Production of new A380s even ceased around this time. Now it seems demand for that size of aircraft is only increasing (at least for specific hub and spoke models).
- icegreentea2 3y agoA380s were scheduled to end production in 2021 even before COVID. Airbus may have mistimed the A380 versus industry trends - though this is certainly up to debate and is still up in the air. The first A380 deliveries were back in 2007, so the also had to eat the impact of the 09 financial crisis.
- rootusrootus 3y agoWhat makes it the best? I've flown on it, and it seems nice enough, though it isn't the most comfortable airliner I've flown on. It's certainly the biggest! But there are only what, 250 or so that were put into service? It's hard to have a strong opinion about a plane in such a small niche.
- CaptainZapp 3y agoIf the engineering of this plane wouldn't have been that great disaster would have loomed.[0] No question about that. [0] https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/a-matter-of-millimeters-the-story-of-qantas-flight-32-bdaa62dc98e7 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/a-matter-of-millimeters-...
- brohee 3y agoThat was an excellent read. Thanks for that.
- algesten 3y agoFor me the A380 is the most comfortable. I'm slightly scared of flying, and turbulence making the entire plane jump around makes it that much worse. I'm only speculating, but I think it might be the sheer bulk of the A380 making it the smoothest rides I've ever been on.
- VBprogrammer 3y agoFlying the A380 doesn't even feel like flying. Even the takeoff roll is sedate.
- danpalmer 3y agoAgreed, I fly long haul a lot and the A380 is the best. A350 is pretty good. 787 is fine, and 777 is crap.
- asylteltine 3y agoIt’s resistant to turbulence. It has the nicest cabins for business class and up. It has many entrances which is nice because then economy doesn’t need to walk past you in contempt. It also has more safety features than I can list which makes it very hard to crash even intentionally.
- cm2187 3y agoIt will inevitably come back in some form in the long term as air traffic keeps increasing. It's much harder to build a new runway and a new terminal in busy airports (ask Heathrow) than to add a floor to a plane.
- makestuff 3y agoTurns out when you care about R&D and not just profits you can build safe/reliable aircraft. With how thin the airline industry is right now post covid though we knew stuff was going to start happening. FAA is short staffed, airline maintenance had a ton of people retire during covid, etc. Here is to hoping things will change before more people lose their lives.
- mrandish 3y ago> At least Airbus seems to be competent in building safe aircraft. Prior to new models released in the last ~10yrs-ish, Boeing made the safest planes in the sky (as measured by passenger miles). Many of those planes are still flying and still doing great. For me the interesting question is what changed in Boeing's design, testing and/or manufacturing processes which is apparently resulting in worse safety performance.
- sp332 3y agoSome corporate history https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21304277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21304277
- intunderflow 3y agoI've heard that when they merged with McDonnell Douglas their new (McDonnell) management pushed out the good engineering culture and dropped their quality standards in a chase for more profit, leading to engineering experiencing the dead sea effect.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y agoin other words: capitalism, the system we've designed our whole society around
- crisdux 3y agoNo, this isn't a well-functioning capitalist system. Competition is a core principle of capitalism. What occurred in the aerospace industry represents a government-sanctioned monopoly.
- windowsrookie 3y agoIn the last 20 years nearly every industry has seen major consolidation between just a few large companies. Is any part of the capitalist system "well functioning" anymore?
- callamdelaney 3y agoThe control stick on the airbus is pretty bad, the fact that neither pilot knows what inputs the other is giving makes them far inferior to the system in boeing aircraft, even with warnings.
- jamghee 3y ago>The FAA said the inspections will take between four and eight hours per plane. Seems reasonable. I was wondering if a single event should really be enough to "ground" all similar planes, but seems like they just want to do a quick inspection.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoIt was a catastrophic failure of a two month old plane. I think grounding is warranted until the scope of the problem is understood.
- vlovich123 3y agoYeah especially given the public trust the FAA needs to rebuild after it came out how Boeing got the 737 certified in the first place. It’s an unmitigated shit show top to bottom.
- rootusrootus 3y ago> 737 You mean 737MAX. The 737 and 737NG have been around for decades (almost 60 years for the 737, almost 30 for the 737NG). IIRC the 737NG has a reasonable case for being the safest airliner ever built. There are some designs that have no fatalities, but they also have very low production numbers to go with it.
- panarky 3y ago> safest airliner ever built ... very low production numbers If one model has 5 million flight hours and zero crashes, and another model has 500 million flight hours and 50 crashes, is it possible to say which model is safer?
- dahdum 3y agoI’ll take the one with 50 crashes any time. That’s 50 times something went catastrophically wrong and 50 times measures were taken to fix the underlying problems. A brand new plane will undoubtedly have brand new problems.
- pella 3y agodups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38893811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38893811
- dang 3y agoThanks! We merged that thread hither since the current article seems to have a bit more background.
- s5300 3y agoI’d at first read the plane was without passengers and just being flown somewhere… and I thought, great. Today I read that it was full of passengers, and the two people supposed to be in the two seats in the row the panel blew out happened to miss their flight. If that’s true… what an interesting set of statistics coming together. Amount of people that sleep through flights Amount of panels that blow out of passenger planes Chance to be seated next to said panel
- whatshisface 3y agoWe are seeing the "inverted Swiss cheese" model of disaster avoidance: you are only safe if several independent, random events go your way.
- krisoft 3y agoI mean, of course it is better that the seats were not occupied, but there is no reason to treat it as if those people for sure would have died if they were on the plane. It sounds like if they were on board and wearing seat belts they would have been fine. Possibly very shaken, but fine.
- s5300 3y ago[dead]
- panarky 3y ago> wearing seat belts After the segment of fuselage fell to the earth, after the giant hole opened, after the kid's shirt was ripped away, passengers were standing up at their seats and in the aisle, and flight attendants had to plead with them to sit down and buckle up.
- efdee 3y agoI'm just going to leave you with this frightening quote: "They said there was a kid in that row who had his shirt was sucked off him and out of the plane and his mother was holding onto him to make sure he didn't go with it." Shirt sucked off him. Mother was holding onto him. Oh hello, a thousand nightmares of my youth.
- el-dude-arino 3y ago[flagged]
- makestuff 3y agoYeah and their practices have spread into big tech too.
- childishnemo 3y agoCan you elaborate?
- makestuff 3y agoAmazon was the one that came to mind with prime air/drone delivery https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/amazon-hires-former-boeing-vet-to-run-prime-air-drone-delivery-unit/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/amazon-hires-former-boei... I guess it all really started with everyone’s favorite CEO of GE, Jack Welch. It seems like he created the blueprint for the cost cutting/stack ranking/MBAs/profits over quality that we see today.
- simion314 3y agoProbably they refer to Tesla, Full Self Driving feature but the small print explains that is not "full self driving" the name is just an aspiration, the advertisement statement are also false because are also aspirations etc. AFAIK there is soem kind of investigation about the mode this feature was advertised and I expect that sooner or later the people that were tricked to pay for a FSD would demand their money back since the promises were not kept. About their safety, the human must pay attention all the time so we can judge the safety of the software because the human intervenes when the situation is to unsafe and prevents the crashes, with the exception when the humans do not pay attention and the car kills/injures them.(any idea what happen with that software guy killed in a Tesla? did the family pursue the cause in justice or they got money to give up?)
- piva00 3y agoTheir practices spread everywhere, most corporations behave following Jack Welch's MBA teachings: cut costs (massive layoffs are Welch's bread and butter), return as much as possible to shareholders because they are the only important players in the corporate game (fuck society, fuck the workers). I hate Welch and all of his acolytes with a passion.
- HumblyTossed 3y agoThe plane that had the issue was new, so I guess they want to make sure it wasn't an issue with other planes off the line maybe? Sure is a good thing nobody was sitting in that seat.
- brewdad 3y agoAnother good reason to keep that seat belt fastened even when the sign is off.
- hnarn 3y agoThe light only means that having it fastened is mandatory. There are many reasons to keep it on during the entire flight, the most common of which is turbulence.
- Symbiote 3y agoIn Europe that's what seems to be a standard announcement. "The captain has switched off the fasten seatbelt sign, but we recommend you keep your seatbelt fastened at all times when seated, in case of sudden turbulence."
- hamstercat 3y agoIt’s the same with canadian and asian airlines. Is it not the case in the US? I just assumed all airlines did it.
- snowwrestler 3y agoLast year I flew domestic U.S. on several airlines and the preflight safety briefing on all of them included a line that passengers should always keep their seat belt buckled for safety whenever seated (or something to that effect).
- Symbiote 3y agoI didn't want to claim it was universal when I've mostly flown within Europe.
- nullorempty 3y agoClearly they need more exemptions.
- agilob 3y agoI bet they are lobbying for it right now
- agilob 3y agoThere we go https://inshort.geartape.com/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/ https://inshort.geartape.com/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- intunderflow 3y agoAlready working on it as of yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358
- asylteltine 3y agoGood. Finally the FAA got a spine with Boeing.
- HumblyTossed 3y agoEspecially since the two are so tightly intertwined.
- grepfru_it 3y agoThey did it for the DC10 and 787 (grounded for inspections). They didn’t need to do it before because Boeing was an actual engineering company
- CamperBob2 3y agoTo be fair, there are a lot of rose-colored sunglasses in the crowd of Boeing critics. The rudder problems with the original 737 weren't exactly McDonnell-Douglas's fault: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
- throwup238 3y agoIs there any place to get the full list of tail numbers involved in the grounding? I just flew on an Alaska 737 Max 9 out of PDX a few days ago and am morbidly curious if my plane was one of the ones grounded.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thomasjudge 3y agoIn all likelihood it is all of them, there aren't that many flying in the US..
- snitty 3y agoAlaska grounded their whole fleet of Max 9s before the FAA ordered it for everyone else. So yes. It was grounded.
- throwup238 3y agoWhen did they ground it? I'm looking at the tail number on FlightAware and it's on a scheduled flight to SEA since 9am.
- jaktet 3y agoI can only assume major hubs have already completed inspection, because a buddy of mine flew out of Seattle on a 737 Max9 this morning. Guess I assumed inspections took longer than half a day
- brewdad 3y agoSupposedly the flaw exists on a section where a “false door” exists for future alterations to the exit points. Perhaps not all of their planes were built with this feature. Nothing to inspect in that case.
- 3y ago
- Coriandor 3y ago[flagged]
- gamepsys 3y agoBoeing is what happens when an engineering focused company gets taken over by MBAs. When it happens to a webtech company we call it enshitification. When it happens to a transportation company lives are actually at risk. Sadly Boeing is important enough to DC that they seem to be allowed to casually risk American lives.
- downrightmike 3y agoAnd risk a multiple of those lives as long as they are foreign, remember the MAX failed several times around the world before getting grounded.
- LargeTomato 3y agoBoeing is late stage MBA. Intel is mid-stage MBA. Google/Alphabet is early stage MBA.
- IceHegel 3y agoThis seems basically right and there is no known cure save bringing back a founder (Jobs & Apple).
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago[flagged]
- DanielHB 3y agoMicrosoft seems to be "coming back" by essentially becoming an umbrella company, much like how all food manufacturers consolidated and are basically a couple of mega umbrella companies
- aplummer 3y agoTwo days ago before we got on one of these planes I said to my partner “don’t worry, it’s the most scrutinized plane in history”.
- physhster 3y agoFamous last words.
- CamperBob2 3y agoIt's like sneaking a bomb on board for safety purposes. "I mean, what are the odds that there are TWO bombs on this plane?"
- whycome 3y agoI wish we had an updated remake of Airplane! that uses this line. THere's so much room for good political satire but it seems like it's not being made.
- hotpotamus 3y agoI believe the above is actually a paraphrase of Jim Jefferies’s bit about the difference between Australian and American airport security actually.
- hadrien01 3y agoThe sketch in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyqBZBC3RbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyqBZBC3RbY
- lostlogin 3y ago‘Satisfaction of search’ is very much a thing. In my field (I’m a radiographer), finding an abnormally is a classic reason to miss another one nearby. To quote a cardiologist I worked with, ‘keep scanning, you can have ticks and lice’. https://radiopaedia.org/articles/satisfaction-of-search-error https://radiopaedia.org/articles/satisfaction-of-search-erro...
- throw0101d 3y agoGood book describing the cultural change from engineering-focus to business-focus of Boeing: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55994102-flying-blind https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55994102-flying-blind * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind-by-peter-robison/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind...
- wkat4242 3y agoI watched a documentary on Netflix recently that alleged that a lot of this change came from importing McDonnell Douglas management into Boeing after the acquisition. I wonder if the book concurs on that, I don't have time to read it right now. If this is the case I wonder if it could be reversible.
- throw0101d 3y agoYes: the running joke is/was that McD bought Boeing with Boeing's money. * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing... * https://archive.is/q5pQV https://archive.is/q5pQV * 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... * https://simpleflying.com/mcdonnel-douglas-boeing-merger/ https://simpleflying.com/mcdonnel-douglas-boeing-merger/ B was pressured to buy McD for 'national security' reasons. What would have been a better idea would have been, instead of doing an 'total' acquisition, is to wait for McD to go bankrupt, and then buy the parts that didn't suck. When they did the acquisition, they also got the management folks… who ran McD into the ground in the first place.
- jes5199 3y agoI’ve heard variations on this story a few times, successful company swallows failing company and gets infected by failing-culture. Isn’t that what happened to Netscape?
- 3y ago
- zitterbewegung 3y agoThis is sort of ironic because they asked to bypass some safety checks on the 737 max 7 recently. Note this is a different model. EDIT: The bypass is about the deicer. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...
- blindriver 3y agoDoes it have the same manufacturing process? It wasn't anything specific to the plane's model, it was the fact that it was a manufacturing defect that caused the door to blow out.
- aaomidi 3y agoThe problem here is the company and its management, not a specific plane. The management trying to weasel out of yet another regulation is entirely showing what’s going on here.
- Denvercoder9 3y ago> It wasn't anything specific to the plane's model, it was the fact that it was a manufacturing defect that caused the door to blow out. We don't know that yet. The NTSB report will tell.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pixl97 3y agoHacker news discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358
- mission_failed 3y agoIt's not a safety check bypass. Boeing wants to make pilots responsible for turning off the deicer within 5 min of ice disappearing to prevent the flawed engines breaking apart in flight.
- nharada 3y agoJuan Browne's YouTube channel posts about basically every aviation accident, and as usual he somehow already has a video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9EvHpf8jZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9EvHpf8jZg
- halJordan 3y agoThe chick's tiktok went viral immediately. And fast followers were already posting tiktoks with pictures of the actual plane, breakdowns of how door plugs are made, etc. You just have to go where the content is. Reuters has been sending journalists across the world for over 100 years. You just have to dl tiktok.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoScrew TikTok. It's a cesspool of shit, compounded by its idiotic aspect ratio.
- Dah00n 3y agoSo, as bad as any other social media, yet with access to as much or more information. At least it is better than videos on Facebook or Reddit.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoNot always. And "information" is an aggrandizement of TikTok content. Facebook doesn't even occur to me anymore, and the only videos I see on Reddit are hosted on YouTube.
- avalys 3y ago[flagged]
- swarnie 3y agoWho else, from what other discipline would the shareholders want in charge? Genuinely asking. I'd take a calculator nerd over a tech bro almost any (business) day.
- avalys 3y agoAn aerospace engineer?
- operatingthetan 3y agoThe public wants it to be an aerospace engineer.
- swarnie 3y agoThe public don't get a vote, companies aren't a democracy.
- operatingthetan 3y agoNo one said they got a vote, snark unnecessary.
- swarnie 3y agoSo why would the public opinion even matter. I'm confused by your original point. No one picks a flight based on what plane takes them there. Its Departure/destination/time/price/connections.
- poncho_romero 3y agoThere are a number of comments in this very thread that show that isn’t true
- belter 3y ago"FAA Statement on Temporary Grounding of Certain Boeing 737 MAX 9 Aircraft" - https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-temporary-grounding-certain-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-temporary-groundi...
- travisgriggs 3y agoAt what point does Boeing just scrap the 9s? Completely, for good? It’s all starting to feel like the galaxy note, where you pass a tipping point of no return with public perception.
- tiahura 3y agoBecause some guy at the factory forgot to lock the door? Isn't that a little melodramatic?
- hypothesis 3y agoWhat makes you think that this was the only door he forgot to lock? There is clearly a pattern here with Boeing QA, doors, bolts, etc
- tiahura 3y agoBased on n=1, I’m hesitant to speculate much and so I don’t have any opinion on whether there will be more. I always don’t see how scrapping the 9 makes sense even if he forgot to do all of them.
- malfist 3y agoWhen will you be happy to extrapolate? When the next incident has bodies? Or will that be another n=1 event?
- lostlogin 3y agoThe whole scenario has ‘the front fell off’, dark comedy vibes. Wish the guy was still alive. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
- tavavex 3y agoLow n is pretty unavoidable here, considering how few aircraft generally get made. Even for the world's leading manufacturers, deliveries are counted in units per month. The point here is that the aviation industry is one of the most regulated and scrutinized industries in regards to safety, and yet despite all that, one manufacturer keeps making very dangerous slip-ups.
- belter 3y agoWays in which you can experience an unexpected cabin decompression to the next world...Or join the mile-high never-come-back club, on a Boeing 737 MAX... 1- Loose bolts: "Boeing Urges Airlines to Check for Loose Bolt in newer 737 MAX Aircraft" - https://www.european-views.com/2023/12/boeing-urges-airlines-to-check-for-loose-bolt-in-newer-737-max-aircraft/ https://www.european-views.com/2023/12/boeing-urges-airlines... 2- Leave the anti-icing system on for more than 5 min after non-icing conditions: "Boeing still hasn't fixed this problem on Max jets, so it's asking for an exemption to safety rules" - https://www.expressnews.com/business/article/boeing-still-hasn-t-fixed-this-problem-on-max-18592245.php https://www.expressnews.com/business/article/boeing-still-ha... 3- Sit too close to a door not in use: "Alaska Airlines grounds 737 Max 9 planes after section blows out mid-air" - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899564 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899564 4 - Possible unscheduled decompression, from incorrectly drilled fastener holes in the aft pressure bulkhead, if being in the wrong plane, at the wrong time: "Boeing and a key supplier find a new manufacturing issue that affects the 737 Max airliner" - https://apnews.com/article/spirit-aerosystems-boeing-737-fuselage-28bceec61cef878005b965a016fa8787 https://apnews.com/article/spirit-aerosystems-boeing-737-fus... I think I am going to need a shared Google Sheet...
- Miraste 3y agoTwo of those are manufacturing mistakes, and it seems likely the door one is as well. Not that that helps the passengers, but they're not systemic design flaws. That anti-icing system is deranged, though. They effectively installed a timed detonator on the engines and want a safety exemption for it.
- mastax 3y agoA manufacturing mistake which makes it into service is a failure of QA and testing systems design. (At least above a certain threshold which varies depending on the industry etc. etc.)
- derefr 3y agoDepends. You can’t do e.g. crystallographical analysis of metals inside an engine if the engine is already put together. You have to trust your vendor that they built the engine correctly and checked the materials themselves. Or at most send auditors to the vendor.
- rootusrootus 3y agoOne troubling aspect of this is that it appears Alaska had reason to believe something was wrong with this plane but basically ignored it. They were getting pressurization warnings on prior flights, but the only action they took was restricting the plane from flying ETOPS routes. They're the dominant carrier in my area, so these sorts of screwups make me nervous. I can't easily avoid using them without a fair amount of inconvenience.
- Xorlev 3y agoDo you have a source for that? I'm not denying it, just curious to read more.
- sidlls 3y agoIt will come out in the NTSB report, if it's true. Though that will take quite a bit of time.
- whycome 3y agocursory search: > Preliminary information about the accident remains scarce, though two people familiar with the aircraft tell The Air Current that the aircraft in question, N704AL, had presented spurious indications of pressurization issues during two instances on January 4. The first intermittent warning light appeared during taxi-in following a previous flight, which prompted the airline to remove the aircraft from extended range operations (ETOPS) per maintenance rules. The light appeared again later the same day in flight, the people said. https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/alaska-737-max-9-that-lost-deactivated-exit-had-recent-pressurization-issues/ https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/alaska-737-max-9-t... No idea about the accuracy of the site. And it seems like they have some script that prevents text highlighting for whatever reason (turn off Javascript).
- mlyle 3y agoWell, that's an interesting thing. During taxi-in, the cabin altitude should be the ground altitude; outflow valves open at touchdown. Hard to understand how an an incipient failure could manifest then (e.g. from increased leakage). Of course, there's warning lights for excessive cabin pressure, etc, too... which would point to a different theory of the problem than a structural manufacturing problem.
- yokem55 3y agoIs there any detail anywhere on what exactly is being inspected? Just the bits of airframe around the where the panel that failed? Can a broader issue with how the airframes were manufactured be ruled out at this point? The cynical part of me wonders if this isn't just a bit of PR to 'ground' the planes for 'inspections' without actually addressing some kind of root cause.
- noncoml 3y agoIt’s not a hole in the airframe. It’s a plugged emergency exit door that failed. I guess that’s what they check. The bolts there.
- bombcar 3y agoInspection will involve this plane, every other plane around this door/panel, and current manufacturing. Records and maintenance logs will be inspected until they know what happened and why, and then check where it could occur on these planes and others.
- yakkomajuri 3y agoI certainly know nothing about planes yet from the reading I've done on the 737 Max I'm a bit uneasy that these planes are still flying. I usually subscribe to the mentality that something that had a significant issue that was fixed is overly scrutinized and thus becomes safe but in this case it seems like the decision-making involved in the making of this plane from the start was flawed, such that I'm not sure patches on patches are enough. Someone who knows more about planes might say all the issues are unrelated but fundamentally in a system like this I think one thing is bound to affect another, and if not that, then the mentality that led to one issue is likely to have been present in the developing of other components of the system.
- intunderflow 3y agoThe FAA will never ban it because politically its untenable in the US, the only thing that could kill the Max off would be if another big regulator such as EASA refused to let the Max into their airspace.
- cratermoon 3y agoThis is going to put a dent in Boeing's request for an FAA waiver for the Max 7
- davidhunter 3y agoInvestigative journalism report into Boeing by Al Jazeera in 2014: https://www.aljazeera.com/program/investigations/2014/7/20/the-boeing-787-broken-dreams/ https://www.aljazeera.com/program/investigations/2014/7/20/t...
- _cenw 3y agoI don't know about this one, but a few years earlier they also reported on the 737 NG, and those claims did not hold up all too well. So I'd take this one with a large grain of salt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation#Structural_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation#Str...
- klysm 3y agoBoeing 737 Max is quite the case study in how to ruin a company via merger
- _cenw 3y agoBoeing made the 737 NG until 2019. It also allegedly had issues with the contractor Ducommun making the airframe, including "hammering alignment holes into place". But it wasn't nearly as problematic of a plane. The Max is a desperate attempt to compete with the A320 neo ("new engine option"). It is the aviation efficiency gain equivalent of a die shrink, except these engines get bigger, and while Airbus had space to spare under the wing of the A320 ceo, the 737 NG did not. So they angled it, changing flight characteristics. Thus, MCAS, because the entire point of keeping the 737 - a 55 year old design - alive is pilots not having to do an entirely new type certificate. Because given availability (not a given, the only reason Ryanair went with Boeing) and staff type certificates not playing a role, Airbus is the clear winner on every metric.
- codeflo 3y ago> pilots not having to do an entirely new type certificate And consequently, their intention seems to be to bend the rules about the validity of the existing certifications to the max (no pun intended). At what point can an agency rule that Boeing no longer follows the spirit of the pilot certification rules?
- _cenw 3y agoMCAS absolutely should have triggered a recertification. It's essentially meant to make the Max feel like the NG by slightly pulling down to compensate for the angled engines. And we all know how that ended when the plane's angle of attack sensor failed, the backup wasn't being checked, and the pilots didn't know their plane suddenly had an extra system pulling on the trim. Even with the autopilot off. This is normal and expected on Airbus craft and later Boeing planes like the Dreamliner, but not the 737. Oh, and the indicator for your AOA sensors disagreeing? Used to be a physical part of the cockpit, and was moved to an optional addon in the Max. But Boeing then forgot to put the indicator in the glass cockpit. Presumably because their development aircraft all had the option. None of the accident airlines had the option.
- Zigurd 3y agoHow even does a "plug" door blow out like that? That's a seemingly very robust design where cabin pressure holds the door in place passively, in addition to the latches holding it in place.
- alibarber 3y agoIt is not a plug door in this case. There was no door - this was a kind of blanker for a space where there could have been a door. A bit like when you buy a car model that doesn’t have all the options installed, there’s a space for the button or switch for the option in the dashboard or whatever but it’s filled in with a fixed bit of plastic - it saves them from having to produce multiple different versions of dashboard, or in this case plane fuselages.
- Zigurd 3y agoAre you sure of that? I've read that it is the same or very similar to an emergency exit, except that the interior is covered by an interior panel. It would be uncovered and equipped as an emergency exit in cases where very tight seating would bring the number of passengers above a threshold requiring more emergency exits. And down the rabbit hole I go wondering if this non-equipped exit is new for 737 MAX planes because they can have more rows of seats.
- alibarber 3y agoI’m fairly sure of it based on the reports but of course we need to wait for the actual investigation. I think it is indeed new for these Max planes and the airline purchased this one in this configuration that would not require it (fewer seats), and adding a functioning exit in (including life rafts and slides) would simply cost a lot more (and weigh more) than just blanking it out with a piece of metal. Not to mention extra maintenance and testing of said exit. The airline may have the desire to buy a model with fewer seats because it’s cheaper and weighs less, but might also have a requirement for fewer cabin crew members too.
- mastax 3y ago
- seydor 3y agoNow i wonder, where did that broken door land?
- cratermoon 3y agoSomewhere in the suburbs south of Portland, possibly near Metzger.
- bombcar 3y agoNTSB will find it, they’re surprisingly thorough.
- cellis 3y agoHow would triangulation of that small of an item be done?
- throw_away_584 3y agoThey drop another door from the same place, this time with an airtag taped to it
- Dah00n 3y agoPoor people who get a second door in the head.
- SoftTalker 3y agoThey'll know from flight data recorder the exact time the decompression occurred. They'll know where and at what altitude the airplane was in the sky at that time and in which direction and speed it was moving. It's nearly a high school physics problem at that point to calculate where the door landed.
- tavavex 3y agoEh, considering wind speed and direction (and its differences at different altitudes), varying pressure and inherent aerodynamic properties of the door plug itself, it's hardly a high school problem. They'll find a decent estimate, but they'll have to search some area unless a person on the ground finds it first.
- ugiox 3y agoHow to avoid the 737 Max? Fly only airlines that don’t have it. Luckily there are still a few around in Europe. Since the two fatal crashes I have avoided doing flights with 737s.
- Me1000 3y agoJust about every airline I’ve ever flown lets you see what kind of aircraft they’re using for the flight you book. It’s pretty easy to avoid flying on a 737 max if you want.
- 0xbadcafebee 3y ago1. Go to Google Flights[1], pick your search options, click Explore 2. On search results[2], find the Departing flight you want 3. On the right-hand side of the flight summary, click the Down arrow ( \/ ) 4. In the drop-down description, below each flight leg is the plane description and flight number. 5. Confirm all planes used for legs of both departing and returning flights. First flight listed: Departure: SYR to CLT: American Economy Airbus A320 AA 1739 CLT to SFO: American Economy Airbus A321neo AA 1580 *Select departure to see return flights* Return: SFO to DFW: American Economy Airbus A321neo AA 2504 DFW to SYR: American Economy Airbus A320 AA 421 Looking through different options, I can see a United flight that connects from SYR to EWR that uses a Boeing 737 MAX 9 Passenger (UA1513). So I'm not picking that flight. You can also find plane information at time of purchase, at least from the airline's website. I highly recommend booking direct at the airline's website, as [in the US] by law you have a 24 hour window to cancel your reservation with no cancellation fee. [1] https://google.com/flights https://google.com/flights [2] https://www.google.com/travel/flights/search?tfs=CBwQAhoeEgoyMDI0LTAyLTAzagcIARIDU1lScgcIARIDU0ZPGh4SCjIwMjQtMDItMTBqBwgBEgNTRk9yBwgBEgNTWVJAAUgBcAGCAQsI____________AZgBAQ https://www.google.com/travel/flights/search?tfs=CBwQAhoeEgo...
- lxgr 3y agoI don’t think that’s a legally binding guarantee, though. Last-minute changes for operational reasons do happen, and I don’t think you can expect compensation in that case. Still, it definitely increases your chances of not flying on a MAX.
- amelius 3y agoThis reminded me of this unrelated incident: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/17/philadelphia-plane-emergency-southwest-landing-engine-explosion-latest https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/17/philadelphi...
- agubelu 3y agoA bit off-topic, but I found it curious that Ryanair refuses to call their Max fleet "737 Max-8", instead they go for "737-8200" in both their safety cards and cabin briefings. I wonder if this is common and if other airlines do the same after the reputational damage from the crashes and groundings.
- blibble 3y agoryanair using misleading advertising? say it's not so! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair#Misleading_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair#Misleading_advertising o'leary bought them as he got them cheap, exactly the same as ryanair's fleet in the 90s
- throwaheyy 3y agoThey call it that because their plane is in fact not a 737 Max 8. Ryanair’s aircraft is a different variant, made only for them, the Max 200 which is the same size as a Max 8 but has the extra exits for up to 200 pax.
- switch007 3y agoIt is in fact a 737 Max 8. It’s a 737-8-200
- salawat 3y agoThat's called a different configuration. It is still a MAX8. A rose, by any other name...
- throwaheyy 3y agoSure but if you read what I’m replying to, they are not “lying” to call it a 737-8-200. That is what it is.
- mihaaly 3y ago...so basically the same just named to sound remarkably different. One more exit and it is not at all the problematic MAX anymore! ;) Surprised they still call it 737 then. :)
- jessriedel 3y agoWhat's the back of the envelope on whether the 737 Max is more dangerous than driving? 1,300 aircraft have been built since the first started flying in 2017, with two deadly crashes. I don't know how many miles those have accumulated, but presumably it's of order 4k miles per day per aircraft, and maybe 3 years (1000 days) of flying to date per aircraft on average, giving a very rough estimate of a few billion miles? So maybe a deadly crash per billion miles, in comparison to a bit over one deadly crash per 100M miles for cars.
- Denvercoder9 3y ago> maybe 3 years (1000 days) of flying to date per aircraft on average It's probably a lot less. 950 out of those 1300 aircraft were delivered in the last three years, and the other 350 were grounded throughout most of 2019 and 2020.
- jessriedel 3y agoCool, thanks. So probably a factor of ~2 fewer miles, or twice the accident rate.
- jacquesm 3y agodivide by the # of passengers...
- jessriedel 3y agoNot really necessary. The two accidents killed everyone on board, and it was a typical load. The number I estimated is something like "fatal crash for everyone per mile". You could multiply by average of passengers on each flight and divide by the average number of passengers on the deadly flights to get a slightly more accurate risk, but not much would change.
- knowledge-clay 3y ago> What's the back of the envelope on whether the 737 Max is more dangerous than driving? Driving is an absurdly dangerous mode of transportation, so it’s probably not the best comparison.
- Instantix 3y agoOn the other hand we have the proof that an Airbus can hit another plane when landing and deliver everyone fine.
- _cenw 3y agoIt's honestly astonishing how well the A350 held up for evacuation, which supposedly took 10 minutes. This is the first hull loss, and it actually improves the safety record.
- tavavex 3y agoAllegedly, some of it can be attributed to the extensive use of carbon fiber in the A350s fuselage and wings.
- askvictor 3y agoWhat can be attributed to the carbon fibre?
- tavavex 3y agoThe plane faring better in the collision than expected and, allegedly, not burning through quickly and buying the passengers more time to evacuate.
- askvictor 3y agoMy naive assuming would have been that carbon fibre would burn easier than aluminium
- tavavex 3y agoWell, yes, the plane did burn down almost completely. The quote I heard that complimented it wasn't that it wasn't flammable, but that it (again, allegedly - I'm not a material scientist) insulated the interior from the fire outside for long enough.
- ygvamjq2ol 3y agoI flew a United MAX 9 last night, I was sitting in the window seat of a visible (Not plugged) emergency exit door. Landed a little while after this incident was reported. About an hour and a half before landing at SFO the pilot announced a hurried “Flight attendants check in” with no follow up announcement to the passengers. It was probably because of the turbulence we had been experiencing a few minutes before, but I wonder if the cockpit was giving flight attendants a heads up in case any passengers got word.
- tavavex 3y agoI feel like this is pretty unlikely - as far as I know, they don't really pass news bulletins and such to pilots, if it's not something that they need to know. Besides, even if some passenger found out, what could they even do?
- jmkni 3y ago> even if some passenger found out, what could they even do? Panic and freak out?
- reciprocity 3y agoIntercom announcements like "flight attendants check-in" are a matter of routine.
- archon810 3y agoYeah, I imagine this could be a call to go to the bathroom or part of a security check-in.
- thangalin 3y ago"Whatever the reasons (market pressures, rushing processes, inadequate certifications, fear of being fired, or poor project management), Leveson’s insights are being ignored. For example, after the first fatal Boeing 737 Max flight, why was the entire fleet not grounded indefinitely? Or not grounded after an Indonesian safety committee report uncovered multiple failures? Or not grounded when an off-duty pilot helped avert a crash? What analysis procedures failed to prevent the second fatal Boeing 737 Max flight?" https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/ https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/
- JoshTko 3y agoWho was the exec that led the Boeing 737 Max?
- jcadam 3y agoLooks like I have to stop making jokes about Scarebus. Boeing quality has been in a steady decline since the McDonnell-Douglas merger.
- taspeotis 3y agoScarebus? You mean “Boeing 737 sMAX into the ground sometimes?”
- einpoklum 3y agoI realize it might not be fair to ask right at this moment, but: How come Boeing hasn't produced a clean-sheet-design replacement for the 737, despite its extreme age? I mean, since its design, the 747, 757 and 767 have come and gone, variants and all, no production continuing. Why the endless adaptations of this old thing: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Boeing_737-130%2C_Lufthansa_AN2056613.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Boeing_7... ?
- coredog64 3y agoBecause Southwest Airlines won’t let them.
- Havoc 3y ago>clean-sheet-design Won't help if there are issues at each step. Design, manufacturing, certification, pilot training, "self-certification" etc. Even if they start from scratch - until they fix their corporate culture the outcomes will stay the same.
- einpoklum 3y agoIt seems that many of the issues - certainly the MCAS thing - stem from the desire to hold on to it still being a 737. Point taken about the corporate culture though.
- Macha 3y ago1. Volume. They've sold so many 737s they're scared to upset the market. 747s 2. Target market. There are airlines like Southwest and Ryanair who use a lot of 737s and have optimised their routines around very specific aircraft, so want as little change as possible. In comparison the bigger aircraft are used more by the legacy carriers and flag carriers, who are more used to operating a mixed fleet and more willing to try something new.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3y ago
- brcmthrowaway 3y agoHow does Embraer compare to Boeing/Airbus? Why don't they take Boeing's position in the market?
- ycombinete 3y agoThe commercial pilots that I know really enjoy flying Embraer planes. I’ve always enjoyed being a passenger on them too.
- hasperdi 3y agoEmbraer was a smaller manufacturer, much smaller than Boeing. The had some success, but it was tough for them to compete with Boeing, especially because Boeing bullied them through regulators. They outmanoeuvred Boeing by letting Airbus buy them for 1 dollar. Now Embraer planes are rebranded as Airbus 200 series
- Macha 3y agoThat was Bombardier, not Embraer. It's also not clear at all that that was a win for Bombardier, other than giving a free win to Airbus to spite Boeing. Given up the project that they were relying on for the future direction of the company for a nominal sum? Airbus made out like bandits, and the government of Quebec cut their losses, but Bombardier almost certainly lost as badly as Boeing in the C-Series/A200 outcome.
- hasperdi 3y agoAh yes, Bombardier. I got it mixed up in my head. Thanks for the correction and a perspective on the deal
- brcmthrowaway 3y agoThis is a good opportunity for BOOM aerospace too
- Macha 3y agoSee what happened when Bombardier tried to muscle into the "big plane" market.
- 0xbadcafebee 3y agoWindow and wall flew off mid flight? Yeah, I'm not flying on a Boeing 737 Max 9 ever again.
- sharkweek 3y agoI’m sitting in Mexico City about to board a Boeing Max 737 (fortunately, I guess, an 8) back to the US. If I am to be randomly thrust upon the afternoon sky against my will, please distribute all my HN karma to my extended family.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cco 3y agoThe two lost air frames from the MCAS issue were 8's I'm sorry to tell you. But its been two hours so hopefully you're in the air and/or landed safely already :)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jimmar 3y agoThis feels like the attention that shark attacks get--way more than it deserves. Somehow as a society we've decided that the correct number of deaths from airplanes is zero, but we're fine with thousands of people dying from other causes that could be prevented.
- netsharc 3y agoWhat the...? Hey, the model of phone or computer you're using might be prone to lethally exploding, but hey, don't worry, you can keep using it because dying by computer/phone explosion would be a very rare thing indeed! A door blows out, and you think no one should say "Wait a minute, let's check all the other doors before you use that model of plane..."?
- iancmceachern 3y agoWe really need another player in this space. There are these startups like Boom etc. Trying to do new things, we should do one that's just normal planes, made right.
- ycombinete 3y agoReminds me of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36828861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36828861
- JonChesterfield 3y agoI am so excited for the SV move fast and break things philosophy applied to commercial aircraft. Control software via javascript, make lots of it out of lithium for the ecological branding, don't bother with pilots. Going to be very exciting.
- iancmceachern 3y agoI'm actually saying the opposite. I'm saying instead of that (boom, etc) we should just make another commercial airplane company that makes regular planes, safely, in a normal way. You and I are agreeing...
- JonChesterfield 3y agoYeah, I'm poking fun at the modern US engineering model. Actually fixing the problem is much harder. It probably goes something like aggressively fire everyone at Boeing who looks vaguely associated with management and reconstitute it as a division of some company that seems to know how to build things that work.
- iancmceachern 3y agoTotally, or do the skunkworks or Manhattan project model where you find some key champions that are technical experts and leaders and have them hand pick teams of people to go work in a different division in a different building only answering to those champions.
- glohbalrob 3y agois this international, or just domestic flights? im on a Mexico City to Vegas flight next week
- halJordan 3y agoThe article(!) says it is only some planes, and then its only a few hours of inspection before flying them again.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]
- mnbion 3y agoMost Airbus manufacturing happens in or near big cities like Toulouse, Hamburg, and Seville. These cities have plenty of engineering talent and plenty of colleges, universities, and other companies creating and nurturing this talent. Meanwhile most Boeing manufacturing seems to be taking place in rural areas (or "flyover states" as you Americans put it). This is of course because of the local and state subsidies that Boeing is getting to create jobs. The question is if the lack of engineering talent in these rural areas is beginning to show its face. Even in my tiny country (Denmark) there is significant decrease in quality of engineering talent outside the tier 1 cities.
- sbierwagen 3y agoThe 737 is made at Boeing Renton and Boeing Everett, two factories in the Seattle area, Boeing's home town, that have been running since the 40s. Fuselages are made at the former Wichita plant, which also dates from the 40s. 737's problems do not stem from being made at a new plant.
- hyperpape 3y agoWhich rural areas are you thinking of? Toulouse and Seville are really not that big (they’re both around the size of Oklahoma City when considering their metro areas). Hamburg is quite a bit bigger.
- JonChesterfield 3y agoThe designs are unsound and the strategy for fixing is to persuade the regulators to look the other way. No way to blame that on the manufacturing teams.
- liquidgecka 3y agoThat's a pretty awful take on engineering culture. I grew up in a city that is one of the most remote in the US and it creates a massive engineering pipeline. It started with civil engineering but moved into ICs, utility power, trains, on and on. Those companies helped build an engineering college which in turn trained engineers.. etc. None of those companies have had issues getting talent. Not all good engineers want to live in mega urban areas and infact it was quite easy pulling talent away with the promise of a back yard and skiing fifteen minutes away if said talent had kids. Especially when the salary goes 2x as far.
- elsonrodriguez 3y agoThe whole point of this aircraft is to avoid modern safety regulations.
- coliveira 3y agoExactly. This plane was created as a modernization of a several decades old design clearly just to be easily approved without major scrutiny by the FAA. There are many bad decisions made to create this plane that we don't even know yet.
- alphanumeric0 3y agoI've been following this story for a bit. I'm traveling to Mexico soon and the last leg is on a 737 MAX 9. I'm looking into contacting Aeromexico to see about changing flights to a different airplane.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoI've been thinking the same thing. Boeing is doubling down on its disgraceful behavior with shit like this: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoIs that a good idea? I always feel like the best time to fly a plane or airliner is after they've had some incident that leads them to being under a microscope. That is, all the MAX 9s have been grounded, and I'm guessing they'll all be thoroughly inspected for this issue before they fly again. So if your concern is that you'll hit a repeat of this same issue, that seems like the wrong concern.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoThere's also the engine-nacelles-melting issue.
- falserum 3y agoBoeing has bad month. There was also loose screws (not max though)
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoWhen I searched for the engine nacelles issue, that appears to only apply to an earlier version (737 NG) of the 737, not the MAX. Which kinda proves my point - someone saying "I don't want to fly on a 737 MAX" may just get put on another plane that has different issues. I guess if you've completely lost faith in Boeing you can decide not to fly any of their planes, but that's going to make flying at all very difficult. And if you decide to drive instead you'd just be taking a more dangerous mode of transportation.
- gregatragenet3 3y agoIf it ain't Boeing it ain't blowing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- FredPret 3y agoBoeing is in deep trouble. $16B underwater ($134B assets, $150B liabilities) [0] Turns out focusing on profits over quality leads to neither. [0] https://valustox.com/BA https://valustox.com/BA
- roody15 3y agoInteresting timeline. Following the two fatal crashes involving the MCAS system and the 737 Max … The FAA gave Boeing until Dec of 2022 to implement a fix. The fix was to reconfigure the 737 Max with 2 sensors (instead of one) and include an manual shutoff Guess what happened? Boeing didn’t fix anything.. instead they cried to congress that the fix is too expensive and they cannot get it done. So what happens is congress includes a provision in the omnibus spending bill to exempt Boeing from having to fix the MCAS system. So today in 2024 .. the 737 Max still only have one sensor although they did retrofit a manual shutoff https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2022/12/23/boeing-max-221223/ https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2022/12/23/boeing-max-221223/ Pretty interesting after millions spent on investigation , congressional hearings, developing engineering a better MCAS system … quietly Boeing just bypasses everything. Honestly it’s super depressing and makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy (inverted corporate democracy perhaps?)
- jacquesm 3y agoAny kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless it is to add more limitations based on past (bad) performance and then only to document the reason the law exists, never to provide exemptions.
- bmulcahy 3y agoSomewhere, the NFL is quickly checking its shoes...
- Kwpolska 3y agoCongress will be happy to replace “Boeing” with “American companies which manufacture all of commercial and military aircraft, satellites, and space vehicles and launchers”.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago> Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless No "unless". No law should target a specific company or individual by name, ever, whether to give them special exceptions or special permissions or special restrictions or anything else. (They also shouldn't target specific companies by sufficiently-specific-description-it-only-applies-to-one-or-two-companies, either.)
- Havoc 3y agoThey had a loose rudder bolt issue literally 8 days ago. https://en.swissquote.ae/newsroom/research/morning-news/2023-12-29 https://en.swissquote.ae/newsroom/research/morning-news/2023...
- cptcobalt 3y agoBack in 2019, I made a lil microsite covering the 737 MAX groundings. Didn't think I'd have to update it again. https://www.isthe737maxstillgrounded.com/ https://www.isthe737maxstillgrounded.com/ It's chilling that both Alaska knew of pressurization issues in prior flights in this aircraft, and Boeing was already trying to get the FAA to look past known safety issues in the 737 MAX 7 certification. "Safety is our top priority"? Ha, absolutely not.
- mysecretaccount 3y agoFWIW my understanding is that only a subset (not sure how they determine which) of the 737 MAX 9s that are grounded.
- cptcobalt 3y agoYeah, that's fair. The tone of the website is sort of like other single-serving websites like "is California on fire", which displays yes even if a small part of California is on fire. http://iscaliforniaonfire.com/ http://iscaliforniaonfire.com/
- piloto_ciego 3y ago> It's chilling that both Alaska knew of pressurization issues in prior flights in this aircraft, Actually this isn’t a big deal, they’d taken it off of ETOPS trips and were following the mx requirements. Intermittent pressurization aren’t that rare. In a brand new airplane I would expect all sorts of weird faults.
- mm0070 3y agoYou've got a typo in there - it's spelled Ethiopian
- RGBCube 3y agoWarning: Undefined array key "PHPSESSID" in /home/public/www.isthe737maxstillgrounded.com/includes/cmsAnalytics.php on line 27 On the bottom of the page. Might wanna look into that
- rich_sasha 3y agoWould this door incident be specific to the 737 Max, or just general Boeing shoddiness? I thought the main big difference about the Max was the engines, and the ensuing software fixes to aerodynamics. But would the doors be very different to other modern 737s? Im wondering if focusing on the Max is a red herring and this is potentially indicative of issues with many more 737s. #armchair-aviation-geek
- uptheroots 3y agoMy dude what is going on with these planss
- game_the0ry 3y agoThe only remedy at this point is to hold executives financially and morally culpable. Anyone opposed to seeing the entire C-suite and board of directors having their bonuses clawed back and sent to jail? I'm not. Let the guillotine come out, I want to see heads roll.
- CamperBob2 3y agoSounds like a great way to create an airplane company that no competent people will want to run. Might want to think through the game-theoretic consequences a bit further. For example, instead of ranting and howling about prisons and guillotines, you could point to some successful examples of other companies or orgs that have operated in a similar fashion. That might provide more productive grounds for further discussion. Any good examples? ... Yeah, I thought so.
- boredpeter 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- feoren 3y ago[flagged]
- CamperBob2 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoRecent and related: Alaska Airlines grounds Boeing 737 Max 9 planes after mid-air window blowout - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38889774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38889774 - Jan 2024 (324 comments) Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38887840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38887840 - Jan 2024 (330 comments)
- haykmartiros 3y agoI
- qwertox 3y agoWhy doesn't Boeing split into a commercial airplane producer and a pure defense contractor company. The former will then have to struggle like a real company while the defense contractor will still be above the law. I'm sure I'm missing lots of logical steps which say that this is a bad idea, but I'd like to hear reasons on why.
- Dah00n 3y agoI don't know anything about this topic, but it seems straightforward to me. Why would they split up a company that is protected into something that is not above the law? It would hurt both the company and the US.
- methodical 3y agoBoeing may think they fly above it all (get it?) but I can assure you despite my largely unwavering confidence in the air travel industry, I will not travel on a Boeing aircraft in the near future. I will see to it that I fly Airbus or not at all, which I'm perfectly fine with should it spare my life. This type of large-scale and continued negligence can only be defined as a company that thinks they're too big to fail. I would rather see the US's airplane manufacturing capabilities decrease than allow such heinous acts of negligence to continue. Shame on Boeing. You'd have thought that the previous 787 and MCAS problems would've straightened them up, but you'd of course be wrong. Let them bleed; dry if need be. This is no way to operate in such an important industry with deadly consequences.
- tizzy 3y agoHow do you enforce that rule? It’s not always easy to pick your flight and aircraft like that (without a lot of money). I’ve got a flight with a national carrier and it’s on a 777; a tried and trusted aircraft and airline so that’s decent reassurance. I think the big thing out of this is that 737s specifically are just outright scary to see on your flight. You should try to avoid any new (2014 onwards?) Boeing aircraft.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 3y agoObjectively, even a 737 MAX is probably safer than driving.
- Arn_Thor 3y agoVery true. But there is probably something about the fact that traffic accidents are direct human error, usually, that make us more comfortable with the risk than the prospect of a systemic, corporate or technical error. Entirely irrational of course.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway67743 3y agoMade in America! And america can't understand why people go elsewhere...
- Dah00n 3y agoPlease, let's keep this at a higher level than Reddit :)
- throwaway67743 3y agoOk fair, but although it was a bit inflammatory, it's a real problem
- InCityDreams 3y agoSometimes, 'reddit-style' (whatever the fuck that may infer) comments are necessary...er, in a functioning society. You could have just ignored it?
- throwaway67743 3y agoI guess it was due to the low effort comment, but there is a real reason - that is, instead of being better at manufacturing etc, America chose to try and stifle others who are evidently just better at it while at the same time made no effort to improve domestic manufacturing. Then can't understand why it doesn't work and other nations are ahead...
- belter 3y ago"EASA yet to follow FAA’s action against 737 Max 9" - https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/easa-yet-to-follow-faas-action-against-737-max-9/156378.article https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/easa-yet-to-follow-faas-...
- erkt 3y agoManagement should rot in prison.
- Axsuul 3y agoEveryone seems to be jumping to conclusions too quickly. It was a plug that failed that filled the spot where a door normally goes, not the actual airframe.
- InTheArena 3y agoAlmost all of this can be laid specifically to the moment when Boeing passed over Alan Mullally for its next CEO in favor of a bean counter. Mullaly went to Ford and rescued that company. If Boeings board were serious about a true turnover here, they need to try and find Mullally And get him on the board right now. At this point the best outcome that I see is a BCA sale to Lockheed. That’s a high order, Elon tried to lure him to Tesla, but was unsuccessful. It’s also worth noting that this is the ultimate outcome of the never rewrite anything mentality. Sooner or later technical debt catches up with you, they needed to launch a new, narrow body 15 years ago, but kept soldering on with the 737, which in turn is really a Boeing 707. While the 797 is the plane that launched the jet and unquestionably the greatest airliner of all time, it’s time is long long past. You can recover from where boeing is at now. It’s not that much worse than airbus was at after their A320 flew into a forest and they hid the flight data recorders, or commercial disaster that was the A380, or the first 350 proposal but they have to want to change.
- Eduard 3y ago> It’s not that much worse than airbus was at after their A320 flew into a forest and they hid the flight data recorders,... This one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296Q Doesn't read like "they" = Airbus hid the recorders.
- dm319 3y agoComparing Boeing's woes to the A320 crash is to take a false middle ground. The A320 crash was the result of pilot risk taking for the purpose of showing off the plane. It didn't happen as the inevitable consequence of a company that prioritised profits over safety and had established management culture and government relationships to enable that.
- panick21_ 3y agoThe Pilot literally turned off safety features on the plane. They simply miscalculated and didn't plan properly. They had not even seen the place where they wanted to fly this demonstration. It was incredibly reckless.
- EMCymatics 3y agoWeird this happens right before Alaska Airlines is about to replace Hawaiian Airlines Airbus fleet
- BooneJS 3y agoGood news, everyone: The United 737 Max 9 I’m supposed to board tomorrow has “already been checked out and returned to service.”
- nytesky 3y agoSo who is ever going to want to sit next to a seat plug again?!
- neycoda 3y agoWhen price trumps quality, integrity becomes fallacy.
- chadash 3y agoSome of the comments in this thread are talking about government corruption and safety issues but I think we should put something into perspective. Not a single passenger has died on a commercial flight in the United States in the last five years, and even then, it was a single fatality in a freak occurrence. To me, that’s not government corruption but mind boggling success. To put that into perspective, you have a significantly better chance of winning the lottery than dying on a United Airlines flight.
- InCityDreams 3y agoThanks. I feel so much better now.