Boeing 737 MAX

[BandB]

A very different question. Will airline passengers be willing to fly on one? This problem doesn't go away when Boeing says the problem is fixed or when American and Southwest say they're ready to go. Who will be the first to return them to service? Will we believe all we're told now, knowing we were not told the whole truth before?

I don't know. I trusted Tylenol because of how transparent and how quick their response was.

I lost trust for Bridgestone and never got it back.

I will never deal with Wells Fargo if they're the last bank of earth and that's in spite of the ownership share of my former boss.

Ford was badly hurt by the fake NBC feature highlighting their very real fire problem. Toyota not so much for their accelerator issue.

I know I would not board the first 737 Max returned to service by American. It may be the most inspected ever and my thinking may be irrational, but I'm not going to be the first. A year or so later, I'd likely think nothing of it. What I don't know is how the overall flying public will act. Normally the average flyer doesn't even think about what plane they're on but this one has gotten and continues to get way too much publicity. Major airlines blaming their deflated earnings on it, only keeps it in the headlines. Flights and routes being cancelled do the same.

Then the question of Boeing's relationship with the airlines. They've had a lot of orders cancelled and others not made or on hold.

On the other hand, the public sometimes shocks me. An Ice Cream, Blue Bell, apparently huge in Texas and surrounding areas. Listeria widespread, many deaths. The managers of the company knew of the problem and did nothing even after that knowledge. Finally all ice cream production halted. Same people still running the company and say all is well now, which on one occasion has already been disproved. I can't understand for the life of me why anyone trusts those who lied to them before and only stopped when forced. I will never eat their product again.

What is it, "Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me."

 

[ssobol]

As far the MAX goes, you are being a bit irrational. You are way more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than die on a MAX, even before the problem was discovered. But that probably doesn't concern you at all.

How many successful flights were there in MAXs before they were grounded? Probably tens of thousands, yet there were only 2 crashes. Odds of being in a crash were very low.

A couple of DC-10s crashed due to a design fault. Didn't seem to affect people very much after the initial hubbub died down. I expect that in a couple of years, no one will think twice about flying on a MAX. I'd fly on one tomorrow if they were still in the airline schedule. Boeing will fix it and make everybody happy, they can't afford not to.

A few orders have been cancelled and I expect that some airlines will use the crash to get out of their contracts if a recession actually occurs. But so far the number of cancellations is very small. The order backlog is around 5K planes. Cancelling 1 or 2 hundred planes won't make a significant dent in the order book. Even with the grounding, if you order one today it'll be years before you get it (although you might be able to get an earlier position cheap if someone wants to dump their planes).

Even if airlines wanted to cancel their MAX orders, what are they going to do? Airbus is the only other game in town (for 737 class airplanes). Their order book is also in the many thousands. Any airline that dumps their Boeing orders is likely to go to the back of the Airbus line and it'll be even longer before they get their planes.

 

[Northern Spy]

I'll fly on the Max.

Bring on the cheap flights! Taking the Max out of service has allowed airlines to gouge customers.

 

[Insequent]

As far the MAX goes, you are being a bit irrational. You are way more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than die on a MAX, even before the problem was discovered. But that probably doesn't concern you at all.

How many successful flights were there in MAXs before they were grounded? Probably tens of thousands, yet there were only 2 crashes. Odds of being in a crash were very low.

A couple of DC-10s crashed due to a design fault. Didn't seem to affect people very much after the initial hubbub died down. I expect that in a couple of years, no one will think twice about flying on a MAX. I'd fly on one tomorrow if they were still in the airline schedule. Boeing will fix it and make everybody happy, they can't afford not to.

A few orders have been cancelled and I expect that some airlines will use the crash to get out of their contracts if a recession actually occurs. But so far the number of cancellations is very small. The order backlog is around 5K planes. Cancelling 1 or 2 hundred planes won't make a significant dent in the order book. Even with the grounding, if you order one today it'll be years before you get it (although you might be able to get an earlier position cheap if someone wants to dump their planes).

Even if airlines wanted to cancel their MAX orders, what are they going to do? Airbus is the only other game in town (for 737 class airplanes). Their order book is also in the many thousands. Any airline that dumps their Boeing orders is likely to go to the back of the Airbus line and it'll be even longer before they get their planes.

Well, there are these things called boats! A far more civilised way to travel. No more sardine tin travel - wouldn't that be great!

If a bunch of FAA people should be fired, ok. But don't ignore Boeing. They MacGyver-ed the situation to begin with. How many other things have they done that they don't feel necessary to disclose to anyone, even the pilots? A bunch of Boeing people also need to be fired for what I would allege is gross negligence.

 

[ssobol]

Well, there are these things called boats! A far more civilised way to travel. No more sardine tin travel - wouldn't that be great!

If a bunch of FAA people should be fired, ok. But don't ignore Boeing. They MacGyver-ed the situation to begin with. How many other things have they done that they don't feel necessary to disclose to anyone, even the pilots? A bunch of Boeing people also need to be fired for what I would allege is gross negligence.

Don't forget the airlines. Boeing gave them what they asked for (i.e. common type rating). The airlines did not do their due diligence when reviewing the Boeing design proposals. Boeing was responding to a customer demand, they didn't build the MAX in a vacuum on their own.

It would take a long time to get from St. Louis to Phoenix in a boat.

 

[FF]

The blame for this entire episode lies with early decisions that identified the failure mode of the MCAS as less than potentially catastrophic.

Nonsense!

The first crash was caused by the crew accepting the aircraft in a legally unflyable condition.

The second crash was caused by the crew NOT following the book procedure.

Has either crew followed the law or the book, the crashes would not have happened.

Read the AV Week article ,

 

[BandB]

I must add one thought as people try to blame the pilots or others and relieve Boeing from their responsibility. We are now 5 months into the FAA grounding and still no timetable as to when they'll return to service. Now, the most optimistic airlines are projecting around the end of the year. Clearly not an easily fixed issue as you know Boeing is addressing it with all the expertise and manpower they can. There's no indication at this point that Boeing even has a solution, just they are working to resolve the issues. I've always been a huge fan of Boeing but this is a major fiasco for them.

 

[ssobol]

I must add one thought as people try to blame the pilots or others and relieve Boeing from their responsibility. We are now 5 months into the FAA grounding and still no timetable as to when they'll return to service. Now, the most optimistic airlines are projecting around the end of the year. Clearly not an easily fixed issue as you know Boeing is addressing it with all the expertise and manpower they can. There's no indication at this point that Boeing even has a solution, just they are working to resolve the issues. I've always been a huge fan of Boeing but this is a major fiasco for them.

Apparently, the investigation has turned up other issues with the MAX in besides the MCAS problem. There are additional problems with the plane plus the whole certification process has been called into question. This is systemic problem in the design and certification of the aircraft, not just something wrong with one part of the plane.

The solution is probably going to require changes at Boeing and the FAA.

 

[BruceK]

The blame for this entire episode lies with early decisions that identified the failure mode of the MCAS as less than potentially catastrophic.

Nonsense!

The first crash was caused by the crew accepting the aircraft in a legally unflyable condition.

The second crash was caused by the crew NOT following the book procedure.

Has either crew followed the law or the book, the crashes would not have happened.

Read the AV Week article ,

C`mon guys. Clearly all pilot error. Get `em back in the air today. Pilots have had long enough to learn to fly properly. If FF and his ilk were still flying, none of this would have happened. Back in the air, today! Pax will be clamoring to book seats.

 

[Rufus]

C`mon guys. Clearly all pilot error. Get `em back in the air today. Pilots have had long enough to learn to fly properly. If FF and his ilk were still flying, none of this would have happened. Back in the air, today! Pax will be clamoring to book seats.

For background....be clear, it's not the job of customers or even FAA Operations (Flight Standards) to certify safe airplanes. That's the job of FAA Aircraft Certification, which is populated by engineers from every discipline, and engineering test pilots...virtually all of them graduates of either the Air Force Engineering Test pilot School at Edwards AFB, or the Navy Engineering Test Pilot School at Patuxent River. Most company pilots also come from these institutions.

There are comprehensive design safety standard developed by the manufacturers, FAA Aircraft Certtification, input from the airline associations and the public for all categories of aircraft....Transport, General Aviation,and Experimental to name the main ones. The design requirements are law. Now, as technology advances, policy material gets issued to interpret possible means of compliance with the regulation. There is obviously a certain amount of interpretation as to what constitutes "minimum safe" as new technology or compliance strategies come into play. In my opinion, the line was crossed when the MAX was allowed to get out the door with a single string AOA input to the MCAS. Yes, both Boeing and the FAA should be severely chastised and reorganized in my opinion . In the case of the FAA, having engineering decisions made by Washington political wonks is way out of line....the previous structure where the technical people were primarily in Seattle was far more effective...and safe.

The idea that it's acceptable to put a transport airplane in the hands of airlines with emergency procedures to cover hard (or soft) overs in an automatic flight control system that can occur in a critical flight regimes is absolutely contrary to the basic certification philosophy. The system should have been duplex at a minimum....not patched with a crew work around that was clearly confusing. And guess what....that's precisely where the current redesign activity is focused...after hundreds of people died. You might be able to say crew error following the system failure was a contributing factor, but the fundamental problem is that they were given an evil and confusing handling airplane when one little item failed. Never should have happened, but it did because some technical people either didn't have their stuff together, they were influenced by management pressure within their own organizations, or a combination of the two. You can bet the disconnects will be difficult if not impossible to ferret out. People's jobs and reputations are in play.

BandB, the MAX will likely be the safest airplane flying when it goes back into service.

 

[BandB]

BandB, the MAX will likely be the safest airplane flying when it goes back into service.

So will say those who said it was safe before. There is real safety and perceived safety. I think it will always have a stigma attached to is. I have no doubt that if it's ever returned to service it will be safe, but I'm still not rushing out to be on the first flight. Normally I don't even know what plane I'm boarding or care, I don't pay attention to brands or models. I believe it will be safe, but then I believed before too.

A lot of people handled this plane poorly for a long time. Makes them all subject to question going forward and hopefully all more aware of their responsibilities. Even when the planes were removed from service, they were unrealistic and mislead others as a result. A month or two turned into closer to a year likely now. I think they all realize now that they have one chance to fix this now and they better get it 100% right.

 

[ssobol]

Almost every aircraft design or operation regulation is the result of somebody dying.

There will be a new regulation for transport category aircraft that will REQUIRE all systems using AOA to have dual inputs and reasonableness checks as a result of these accidents.

 

[Boat]

Never know what will leave an impression on people. ETOPS or MPL might be expected to leave an impression. Instead it is MAX. The drivers in cars around me concern me more. If I can get to the airport alive I'll be happy to fly the MAX.

 

[ssobol]

Never know what will leave an impression on people. ETOPS or MPL might be expected to leave an impression. Instead it is MAX. The drivers in cars around me concern me more. If I can get to the airport alive I'll be happy to fly the MAX.

Most people don't know what ETOPS or MPL really mean. So far, there have not been any crashes due to either of those, so the press hasn't made a big deal about it.

First crash of a plane because of ETOPS will be all over the news and the ETOPS limits will come way down.

 

[BruceK]

For background....be clear, it's not the job of customers or even FAA Operations (Flight Standards) to certify safe airplanes. That's the job of FAA Aircraft Certification, which is populated by engineers from every discipline, and engineering test pilots...virtually all of them graduates of either the Air Force Engineering Test pilot School at Edwards AFB, or the Navy Engineering Test Pilot School at Patuxent River. Most company pilots also come from these institutions.

There are comprehensive design safety standard developed by the manufacturers, FAA Aircraft Certtification, input from the airline associations and the public for all categories of aircraft....Transport, General Aviation,and Experimental to name the main ones. The design requirements are law. Now, as technology advances, policy material gets issued to interpret possible means of compliance with the regulation. There is obviously a certain amount of interpretation as to what constitutes "minimum safe" as new technology or compliance strategies come into play. In my opinion, the line was crossed when the MAX was allowed to get out the door with a single string AOA input to the MCAS. Yes, both Boeing and the FAA should be severely chastised and reorganized in my opinion . In the case of the FAA, having engineering decisions made by Washington political wonks is way out of line....the previous structure where the technical people were primarily in Seattle was far more effective...and safe.

The idea that it's acceptable to put a transport airplane in the hands of airlines with emergency procedures to cover hard (or soft) overs in an automatic flight control system that can occur in a critical flight regimes is absolutely contrary to the basic certification philosophy. The system should have been duplex at a minimum....not patched with a crew work around that was clearly confusing. And guess what....that's precisely where the current redesign activity is focused...after hundreds of people died. You might be able to say crew error following the system failure was a contributing factor, but the fundamental problem is that they were given an evil and confusing handling airplane when one little item failed. Never should have happened, but it did because some technical people either didn't have their stuff together, they were influenced by management pressure within their own organizations, or a combination of the two. You can bet the disconnects will be difficult if not impossible to ferret out. People's jobs and reputations are in play.

BandB, the MAX will likely be the safest airplane flying when it goes back into service.

I agree entirely Rufus. Unfortunately the irony/sarcasm in my post was not abundantly clear, I thought what I was saying was so silly it would have been. In any event I apologize for being unclear.

For the record, in my opinion:
1.There is no way the crashes are pilot error and,
2.There is no way at present Max planes should go back into the air except for testing.

 

[FF]

"the MAX will likely be the safest airplane flying when it goes back into service."

NOT if the pilots decide to go fly a broken aircraft that would legally be grounded , or refuse to follow the published procedures when something happens.

NO aircraft ever built is "safe" under those conditions.

 

[BandB]

I find it interesting that this thread has gone 4 months with no post. I know many thought my earlier posts were overreaction. Can you still say that? No signs of the 737 Max returning to service. No idea what happens to any orders for the 737 Max or other models. Boeing has done so much damage to themselves with the problems and then failing to address them until forced and continued denial of the severity of the issue and trouble in fixing it. CEO resigned but one sacrifice won't be enough. A good company making fatal mistakes both literally and figuratively.

Can you now trust any words or planes coming from Boeing? If so, how? If not, what will it take to regain your trust?

Would you fly a 737 Max if returned to service? What about other new models?

 

[Ken E.]

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg was fired today. 737 Max production at the Renton plant near Seattle will stop beginning January. Neither much of a surprise.

 

[O C Diver]

I find it interesting that this thread has gone 4 months with no post. I know many thought my earlier posts were overreaction. Can you still say that? No signs of the 737 Max returning to service. No idea what happens to any orders for the 737 Max or other models. Boeing has done so much damage to themselves with the problems and then failing to address them until forced and continued denial of the severity of the issue and trouble in fixing it. CEO resigned but one sacrifice won't be enough. A good company making fatal mistakes both literally and figuratively.

Can you now trust any words or planes coming from Boeing? If so, how? If not, what will it take to regain your trust?

Would you fly a 737 Max if returned to service? What about other new models?

Think you're overreacting. Boeing will get it fixed and a year later most will have forgotten. Has ExxonMobil gone out of business after the Valdez? BP gone out of business after the Horizon well disaster? Ford go out of business over the Pinto fuel tank fires? How many customers does Philip Morris loose every day?

I am surprised it has taken this long to fix the problem, but the government and the airlines aren't going to let Boeing go away.

I have no statistical evidence to support this, but I doubt if 70% of the flying public knows who made the plane they're flying on, the taxi there riding in, or the subway car.

Ted

 

[Boat]

You should never trust another pilot either. They'll fly deathtraps loaded with passengers, bad judgement. Never trust an engineer either.


They bought Boeing with Boeing's money. Read about that one. Put your trust in lawyers, journalists, polititians and bureaucrats. Just don't bet your life on it.

 

[GFC]

I'm not sure how firing the CEO is going to instill consumer confidence back into Boeing. He's a scapegoat and I'm guessing he was WELL compensated for taking the fall. Enough that he won't every have to write another resume or go job searching.


I'd also bet that he didn't know of any software glitches that were the cause of the plane's problems.


I feel bad for the assembly line workers who will be offered jobs on the other side of the country while Boeing sorts this mess out. That's a tough decision to have to make, especially if you're close to retirement. I'd bet there will be a lot of employee buyouts offered.

 

[BruceK]

No winners here. Just losers. The dead and their relatives, the flight crews and operators who were unfairly dumped on, the travelling public, the stockholders, the company, the staff, user airlines,...the list goes on and on.
No one posted because nothing changed. B&B is not overreacting. Most people know what plane they fly and who made it. Maybe the Max will fly again, I thought it would have been back long ago, but it`s not. If Boeing could still self certify it might be, maybe it`s good they can`t.
But people still board(ed) DC10/MD11s, A330s,B767s, and others, which had awful things happen. If it gets back in the air,people will probably board it. Boeing has a stockpile to sell, the travelling public may not have an alternative.

 

[BandB]

Think you're overreacting. Boeing will get it fixed and a year later most will have forgotten. Has ExxonMobil gone out of business after the Valdez? BP gone out of business after the Horizon well disaster? Ford go out of business over the Pinto fuel tank fires? How many customers does Philip Morris loose every day?

I am surprised it has taken this long to fix the problem, but the government and the airlines aren't going to let Boeing go away.

I have no statistical evidence to support this, but I doubt if 70% of the flying public knows who made the plane they're flying on, the taxi there riding in, or the subway car.

Ted

I don't suggest at all that Boeing will go out of business. I don't think they will, don't want them to. I think they'll be rocked to their core though and they will suffer enough to become a better company. As to people knowing what plane they're flying, rest assured though that the vast majority have heard and read about the 737 Max and many will refuse to fly it.

I'm not overreacting to the severity of this and the poor handling by Boeing and the Airlines.

 

[BandB]

Boeing has a stockpile to sell, the travelling public may not have an alternative.

Are American and Southwest going to take delivery of those they have on order? I have no idea. I suspect they will at some tremendous financial inducement.

 

[BruceK]

Are American and Southwest going to take delivery of those they have on order? I have no idea. I suspect they will at some tremendous financial inducement.

Airlines need to refresh or expand fleets. What are the alternatives? The Max was larger capacity single aisle. I suspect the airlines need it and will buy. Boeing should have plenty of stock.
Virgin Australia postponed?cancelled their order, as much due to their needs and viability. They struggle on, largely owned by a consortium of disappointed airlines.I don`t think the more successful Qantas ordered them, though in June Qantas announced they were considering the Max 8,despite its grounding.

 

[Andy G]

Seems like the board, in a bid to survive sacrificed the CEO, who's background apparently was from the defense hardware side of the organisation rather than commercial aviation division.

As has already been posted, he probably may not have much knowledge of the issues until the aircraft failures required board intervention.

If as has been suggested this is in part an engineering failure of moving large heavy engines toward the front of the fuselage causing the plane to fly in a nose downward trim in certain circumstances, requiring this to be rectified by a software program does not inspire confidence.

When they are finally cleared to fly again I personally won't be one of the early volunteers, and I suspect others may be of the same opinion.

Boeing has done itself immense brand damage, people have a lot less trust in large multinationals than in the years gone by and it is a lot harder to get that trust back again.

 

[ssobol]

In the US 100 people die in car crashes every day. 100 people every day by guns. The equivalent of 3 plane loads of people die from medical errors every day. Nobody blinks an eye.

300 dying in 2 airplane crashes is nothing (no offense to the people who died). People will forget the two MAX accidents pretty quickly. There are very few aircraft types that haven't had any crashes. 2 737s crashed due to rudder problems. A few other 737s had close calls. None of those suffered long term refusal of passengers to fly on them (if any at all).

The problem with the MAX was the placement of the engines caused the plane to nose up too easily compared to the 737NG in certain situations. The kludge by Boeing was to keep the nose from coming up too easily, making it fly like the NG. In the two crashes, the system caused the nose to trim too far down, although in one case it was the excessive speed that killed them. If they pulled the power back they would have had a much better chance.

 

[BandB]

In the US 100 people die in car crashes every day. 100 people every day by guns. The equivalent of 3 plane loads of people die from medical errors every day. Nobody blinks an eye.

300 dying in 2 airplane crashes is nothing (no offense to the people who died). People will forget the two MAX accidents pretty quickly. There are very few aircraft types that haven't had any crashes. 2 737s crashed due to rudder problems. A few other 737s had close calls. None of those suffered long term refusal of passengers to fly on them (if any at all).

The problem with the MAX was the placement of the engines caused the plane to nose up too easily compared to the 737NG in certain situations. The kludge by Boeing was to keep the nose from coming up too easily, making it fly like the NG. In the two crashes, the system caused the nose to trim too far down, although in one case it was the excessive speed that killed them. If they pulled the power back they would have had a much better chance.

Let's be clear on one thing, we don't yet know all the causes or problems with it. They thought they did but ran into more. The fact is they don't have the problem fixed, they can't test their solution or belief. Until they can, it's theory but their theory hasn't been very reliable so far.

As to autos, when it's shown to be a manufacturing defect causing accidents or deaths, we do react harshly. Toyota lost a lot of sales with their engines continuing to proceed. Ford was hurt badly by their fire issues including the fake NBC demonstration. Jeep lost market share due to their propensity for roll overs.

 

[twistedtree]

I'm curious about how this is being absorbed by the overall airline industry.


- What are carriers doing now that they are "missing" some number of planes? Do they just cut back routes and flights and fly what they have with new schedules? Do they lease planes from others, perhaps bringing retired planes back in service?


- Where are all the MAX planes sitting? Is there that much free storage space at airports? Have they all been flown back to Boeing? Or are they in the desert airplane graveyard, waiting at the door?


- Who is absorbing the cost of these grounded planes? There are lease payments that I'm sure are still due, yet no revenue from the planes. That's a huge cash burn for the airlines. Do you suppose they have business interruption insurance?


- How many of the airlines have sued Boeing for loss of business? I expect every one of them, unless there was some prohibition on that in the plane purchase agreement.


- Does Boeing built to order, or build to stock? I expect it's build to order, so production will only be as fast as orders. And I'm sure airlines will not accept delivery of any new planes until this issue is resolved, hence the current halt in production.



- How many orders have been delayed or cancelled by the airlines? I'm sure more are to come. But I also expect lead time to order and receive a plane is quite long, so hard for airlines to jump ship and order something else.


And the $64,000 question.... will this end up killing production of the MAX?

 

[Woodland Hills]

The real question is will this end up killing Boeing?