6 ms·

I find it puzzling that airlines are still ordering this plane. It's not just us, the customers, who should "vote with their feet", but the airlines, too. I wo

I find it puzzling that airlines are still ordering this plane. It's not just us, the customers, who should "vote with their feet", but the airlines, too. I would not buy from a vendor that is not able to have a QA process that makes sure all screws and bolts are in place, fastened and secured. Even if it would not be an airplane where this is critical for safety, even if it would just be a toaster, I would stop buying. I would find it insulting as a customer to buy something for 50 Million USD to find out that the vendor was not willing to invest a little bit in QA. I understand that the 737 MAX is very cheap, but the damage to an airlines reputation, even if 90% of the customers do not care, should be priced in, which in the end makes it an expensive airplane. Looking at the number of quality and design issue problems Boeing had during the last couple of years, combined with the press attention they are getting now, I think we can take it for granted that during the next couple of months more such issues will be found, including the "oops, that potentially could have crashed the airplane" category. Also, I find it really insane that after all these issues the FAA still has not been reformed, properly staffed and funded. It really really should be clear by now that the system of Boeing doing the "certification" the FAA is supposed to be in charge of themselves. And finally: It goes beyond my comprehension that someone would decide to build a version of the voice recorder specifically for the US that only stores 2 hours of voice, while the international version of the same plane stores 25. What kind of cost reduction per unit is that, $1 per airplane? Having two different models to "certify", produce and warehouse just to save a dollar or something per unit does not sound like any sane business decision. Some people say that Boeing is that terrible because they cut corners to save costs everywhere. But to me it sounds like they even are bad at executing cost cutting...

dawnerd 3y ago
What choice do they have? If they switch to Airbus they’re going to be waiting until at least 2030. They could buy used but that’s goes against why airlines are ordering new planes to begin with. And that’s not factoring in the maintenance cost in switching manufacturers. Thats why you’ll see airlines be a Boeing or Airbus only fleet.
- datadeft 3y ago
  Do you think it is better to buy a plane that potentially going to be grounded than wait?
  - pknomad 3y ago
    I'm not saying I support how the 737 MAX program was executed but at least you have a plane that is potentially flying versus not having one at all.
  - pc86 3y ago
    Yes, because you get revenue from a plane that is "potentially" going to be grounded, and you don't get anything from sitting around.
    - datadeft 3y ago
      Makes sense!
    - crazytony 3y ago
      and the manufacturer can be held liable for lost revenue so even if the AC is grounded, you can get some $$$
- crazytony 3y ago
  The counter point to operating one type is on display here: if the regulator grounds the type, your whole airline is stuck. The only thing that eliminates/highlights issues is time. The 320 and 220 are faced with major engine issues and groundings due to looks at notes not QAing the metal powder used in the sintering process for over 8 years.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    Except Alaska is an all Boeing 737 airline and they are still operating. Only some of the planes are grounded.
  - 3y ago
immibis 3y ago
Remember that airlines are forced to make good financial decisions, or they'll go bankrupt. That means buying from the vendor all their pilots are trained on, and it means buying from the cheapest vendor, and it means buying from the vendor with the shortest lead time. They might not have much choice.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  >> Remember that airlines are forced to make good financial decisions, or they'll go bankrupt. List of airlines that have gone bankrupt, US only: Aero Sun International Aero Virgin Islands Aeroamerica Air Bahia Air Canada Air Kentucky Air Midwest Air Pennsylvania Air South Aloha Airlines (three times) Altair Airlines America West Airlines American Airlines American Trans Air (ATA) Arrow Air Astec Air East ATA Airlines Avianca Big Sky Braniff International Cochise Airlines Comair Connectaire Continental Airlines Coral Air Delta Air Lines Direct Air Dynamic International Airways Eastern Airlines Eastwind Airlines Eos Airlines Evergreen International Airlines Excellair Flash Airlines Florida Airlines Frontier Airlines (twice) Gemini Air Cargo Golden Gate Airlines Independence Air Indiana Airlines Island Air (Hawaii) L’Express LANICA LATAM Airlines Group Maxjet Airways Mesa Airlines Mexicana Miami Air Midway Airlines (twice) Mountain West Airlines-Idaho National Airlines National Florida Airlines New York Airways Northcoast Executive Northwest Airlines Oceanaire Lines Pacific Coast Airlines Pan American World Airways Partnair PenAir Pinehurst Airlines Pinnacle Airlines Primaris Airlines Princeton Air Link Ravn Alaska Republic Airways Holding Ryan International Airlines SeaPort Airlines Silver State Airlines Skybus Airlines Southeast Airlines Southern Air Sun Country Airlines (three times) Swift Aire Lines Tejas Airlines Trans World Airlines TransMeridian Airlines United Airlines US Airways (twice) Will's Air -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_bankruptcies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_bankruptcies_i...
Aloha 3y ago
Buying something else means a pilot/fleet mismatch, and higher retraining costs
weaksauce 3y ago
> And finally: It goes beyond my comprehension that someone would decide to build a version of the voice recorder specifically for the US that only stores 2 hours of voice, while the international version of the same plane stores 25. What kind of cost reduction per unit is that, $1 per airplane? Having two different models to "certify", produce and warehouse just to save a dollar or something per unit does not sound like any sane business decision. pilots unions strongly fight against this for privacy reasons is why.
- crazytony 3y ago
  yes. It wasn't about cost at all. It's the same reason there are no cameras on the flight deck.
- contravariant 3y ago
  Normally I would agree with them that making the recording much longer than it plausibly needs to be is not a good idea. Preventing life-or-death situations is about the only reason I'm in favour of recording anything at all. However evidently 2 hours of sound isn't long enough. Just because a plane keeps going for more a few hours doesn't mean the incident wasn't serious enough to warrant recording.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    Sure, more time would be good for investigators. But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings. Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely.
    - account42 3y ago
      > But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings. They have concerns. Legitimacy is a matter of opinion. > Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely. Actually, they don't. Pilots trying to hide evidence are free to find another job that isn't as safety critical.
ytdytvhxgydvhh 3y ago
It’s like people buying Teslas. Sure, it’s a company run by a mercurial edgelord billionaire who doesn’t believe in quality assurance or decent post-sale service, but hey, it’s a well-priced (depending on your jurisdiction maybe) car built by a company focused on electric cars and chargers. Not like you have a ton of options.
- averageRoyalty 3y ago
  In Australia, both your points are invalid. There are stringent quality control rules (the new Model 3 has just been held back until Tesla make engineering changes to meet Australian compliance), and there are plenty of other pure EV company options - BYD, Polestar, etc - as well as decent alternatives like Kia and MG. It's governments job to proactively ensure safety standards are met, that the consumer has recourse if they are not, and to allow healthy competition in the market. If your market doesn't have this, don't blame Tesla.
- Fischgericht 3y ago
  I don't think it's a comparable situation. A lot of Tesla drivers, especially the early ones, are part of some kind of cult. Think about all the people who paid thousands of USD/Euro to buy a license to "Autopilot is coming in two weeks", to still haven't gotten any return on investment at all (over here in Europe it is not available at all). And I am saying this having bought my Tesla three years ago. Also, while their build quality is pretty terrible compared to oldschool car manufacturers, with the exception of Autopilot most of their build quality problems are not safety related. Think of the excellent Euro NCAP Safety test results, for example. It's more like that you know that if you buy a Tesla you can not expect the wipers to be any good at cleaning the window, or the doors not being aligned properly. My impression is that Tesla has a very good QA, but with a policy of "we'll ignore all cosmetics". Boeing on the other hand does appear to have completely broken QA processes in the safety sector. Their priorities might be the opposite of Tesla's. Kind of "It's OK if it explodes as long as it looks nice while doing so". :)
Fischgericht 3y ago
I also find it troubling that according to various press reports today the initial inspection instructions Boeing has given to the airlines have pretty much boiled down to "look around if you find loose bolts somewhere". If they had a working documented QA process they should have been able to immediately release step by step instructions on what exactly needs to checked and where. My company builds routers, which are far less mission critical. We have step by step instructions on QA steps both hanging on our walls and available digitally, too. It would take us an hour or so to share these with customers. I also wonder: All the time I only read about Alaska Airlines and United having grounded their 737 max planes. What about all the other customers of them around the world? I haven't heard of any other airline, for example here in Europe where I am, having grounded those planes for inspection. Is this a "if planes crash abroad it won't damage our shareholder value in the US that much" kind of strategy...?

dawnerd 3y ago

What choice do they have? If they switch to Airbus they’re going to be waiting until at least 2030. They could buy used but that’s goes against why airlines are ordering new planes to begin with. And that’s not factoring in the maintenance cost in switching manufacturers. Thats why you’ll see airlines be a Boeing or Airbus only fleet.

datadeft 3y ago
Do you think it is better to buy a plane that potentially going to be grounded than wait?
- pknomad 3y ago
  I'm not saying I support how the 737 MAX program was executed but at least you have a plane that is potentially flying versus not having one at all.
- pc86 3y ago
  Yes, because you get revenue from a plane that is "potentially" going to be grounded, and you don't get anything from sitting around.
  - datadeft 3y ago
    Makes sense!
  - crazytony 3y ago
    and the manufacturer can be held liable for lost revenue so even if the AC is grounded, you can get some $$$
crazytony 3y ago
The counter point to operating one type is on display here: if the regulator grounds the type, your whole airline is stuck. The only thing that eliminates/highlights issues is time. The 320 and 220 are faced with major engine issues and groundings due to looks at notes not QAing the metal powder used in the sintering process for over 8 years.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Except Alaska is an all Boeing 737 airline and they are still operating. Only some of the planes are grounded.
- 3y ago

immibis 3y ago

Remember that airlines are forced to make good financial decisions, or they'll go bankrupt. That means buying from the vendor all their pilots are trained on, and it means buying from the cheapest vendor, and it means buying from the vendor with the shortest lead time. They might not have much choice.

rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> Remember that airlines are forced to make good financial decisions, or they'll go bankrupt. List of airlines that have gone bankrupt, US only: Aero Sun International Aero Virgin Islands Aeroamerica Air Bahia Air Canada Air Kentucky Air Midwest Air Pennsylvania Air South Aloha Airlines (three times) Altair Airlines America West Airlines American Airlines American Trans Air (ATA) Arrow Air Astec Air East ATA Airlines Avianca Big Sky Braniff International Cochise Airlines Comair Connectaire Continental Airlines Coral Air Delta Air Lines Direct Air Dynamic International Airways Eastern Airlines Eastwind Airlines Eos Airlines Evergreen International Airlines Excellair Flash Airlines Florida Airlines Frontier Airlines (twice) Gemini Air Cargo Golden Gate Airlines Independence Air Indiana Airlines Island Air (Hawaii) L’Express LANICA LATAM Airlines Group Maxjet Airways Mesa Airlines Mexicana Miami Air Midway Airlines (twice) Mountain West Airlines-Idaho National Airlines National Florida Airlines New York Airways Northcoast Executive Northwest Airlines Oceanaire Lines Pacific Coast Airlines Pan American World Airways Partnair PenAir Pinehurst Airlines Pinnacle Airlines Primaris Airlines Princeton Air Link Ravn Alaska Republic Airways Holding Ryan International Airlines SeaPort Airlines Silver State Airlines Skybus Airlines Southeast Airlines Southern Air Sun Country Airlines (three times) Swift Aire Lines Tejas Airlines Trans World Airlines TransMeridian Airlines United Airlines US Airways (twice) Will's Air -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_bankruptcies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_bankruptcies_i...

Aloha 3y ago

Buying something else means a pilot/fleet mismatch, and higher retraining costs

weaksauce 3y ago

> And finally: It goes beyond my comprehension that someone would decide to build a version of the voice recorder specifically for the US that only stores 2 hours of voice, while the international version of the same plane stores 25. What kind of cost reduction per unit is that, $1 per airplane? Having two different models to "certify", produce and warehouse just to save a dollar or something per unit does not sound like any sane business decision. pilots unions strongly fight against this for privacy reasons is why.

crazytony 3y ago
yes. It wasn't about cost at all. It's the same reason there are no cameras on the flight deck.
contravariant 3y ago
Normally I would agree with them that making the recording much longer than it plausibly needs to be is not a good idea. Preventing life-or-death situations is about the only reason I'm in favour of recording anything at all. However evidently 2 hours of sound isn't long enough. Just because a plane keeps going for more a few hours doesn't mean the incident wasn't serious enough to warrant recording.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Sure, more time would be good for investigators. But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings. Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely.
  - account42 3y ago
    > But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings. They have concerns. Legitimacy is a matter of opinion. > Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely. Actually, they don't. Pilots trying to hide evidence are free to find another job that isn't as safety critical.

ytdytvhxgydvhh 3y ago

It’s like people buying Teslas. Sure, it’s a company run by a mercurial edgelord billionaire who doesn’t believe in quality assurance or decent post-sale service, but hey, it’s a well-priced (depending on your jurisdiction maybe) car built by a company focused on electric cars and chargers. Not like you have a ton of options.

averageRoyalty 3y ago
In Australia, both your points are invalid. There are stringent quality control rules (the new Model 3 has just been held back until Tesla make engineering changes to meet Australian compliance), and there are plenty of other pure EV company options - BYD, Polestar, etc - as well as decent alternatives like Kia and MG. It's governments job to proactively ensure safety standards are met, that the consumer has recourse if they are not, and to allow healthy competition in the market. If your market doesn't have this, don't blame Tesla.
Fischgericht 3y ago
I don't think it's a comparable situation. A lot of Tesla drivers, especially the early ones, are part of some kind of cult. Think about all the people who paid thousands of USD/Euro to buy a license to "Autopilot is coming in two weeks", to still haven't gotten any return on investment at all (over here in Europe it is not available at all). And I am saying this having bought my Tesla three years ago. Also, while their build quality is pretty terrible compared to oldschool car manufacturers, with the exception of Autopilot most of their build quality problems are not safety related. Think of the excellent Euro NCAP Safety test results, for example. It's more like that you know that if you buy a Tesla you can not expect the wipers to be any good at cleaning the window, or the doors not being aligned properly. My impression is that Tesla has a very good QA, but with a policy of "we'll ignore all cosmetics". Boeing on the other hand does appear to have completely broken QA processes in the safety sector. Their priorities might be the opposite of Tesla's. Kind of "It's OK if it explodes as long as it looks nice while doing so". :)

Fischgericht 3y ago

I also find it troubling that according to various press reports today the initial inspection instructions Boeing has given to the airlines have pretty much boiled down to "look around if you find loose bolts somewhere". If they had a working documented QA process they should have been able to immediately release step by step instructions on what exactly needs to checked and where. My company builds routers, which are far less mission critical. We have step by step instructions on QA steps both hanging on our walls and available digitally, too. It would take us an hour or so to share these with customers. I also wonder: All the time I only read about Alaska Airlines and United having grounded their 737 max planes. What about all the other customers of them around the world? I haven't heard of any other airline, for example here in Europe where I am, having grounded those planes for inspection. Is this a "if planes crash abroad it won't damage our shareholder value in the US that much" kind of strategy...?