# The Boeing MAX 8 Accidents



## Dakota 400

The more that I hear and read about these two accidents are concerning. It's concerning for me who often fly on a Boeing product. It's concerning me as a Boeing shareholder looking at my Proxy Card for the Annual Meeting and wondering if it's time to register a vote of "no confidence" in Management.

Company's financials look good, but what is the corporate culture? Is there some regulatory "coziness" between the Company and the FAA that is a contributing factor? Is trying to rush the development and deployment of an aircraft that competes with a similar Airbus aircraft a contributing factor?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dakota 400 said:


> The more that I hear and read about these two accidents are concerning. It's concerning for me who often fly on a Boeing product. It's concerning me as a Boeing shareholder looking at my Proxy Card for the Annual Meeting and wondering if it's time to register a vote of "no confidence" in Management.
> 
> Company's financials look good, but what is the corporate culture? Is there some regulatory "coziness" between the Company and the FAA that is a contributing factor? Is trying to rush the development and deployment of an aircraft that competes with a similar Airbus aircraft a contributing factor?


It's looking like the Answer to your questions is Yes!!!

See the CEOs Mea Culpa today!


----------



## GBNorman

I held a Long position in BA until about a year ago. Made some really nice $$$ from it.

I'm not sure if the Ethopian Officers are without fault. If a system is malfunctioning and you have the means to shut it off and make like John Wayne in "The High and the Mighty", you don't turn it back on.

However, I think the comment that Oscar Munoz, United's CEO, made was callous. The comment was to the effect of "We train 'em and we pay 'em to fly the plane, so they'd best just fly the plane".

I'd like to think that Boeing will get to the bottom of this, and in a few months, "water under the dam". But never forget 325 lives hsve been lost.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

> I'm not sure if the Ethopian Officers are without fault. If a system is malfunctioning and you have the means to shut it off .... you don't turn it back on.



The story that I read was there was two switch/breaker to disable the electric motor that was control the pitch down command from the computer.(ailerons? or elevators?)

The problem was you pulled the breaker the motor stop and ailerons* were stop
at whatever setting they were when they lost power.

So if the aircraft was pitch down it stayed pitch down. The aircraft was not neutral, or fly level.

To regain control the crew was (seem) to cycle the power back to the motors to change the angle of the ailerons*, a attempt to regain neutral. Since the computer was try to pitch down aircraft, they were fighting for control ever time the power was restored.

One thinks this would of work, if they were higher, and had more space to play.


----------



## ehbowen

Unfortunately, it's worse than that. From the story I saw, at the speed the MAX was flying, the aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer trim were such that it proved IMPOSSIBLE to return it to normal with muscle power alone after the system was powered off. Their choices were to leave it off, and die, or power it back on and hope that the gremlin had fallen asleep...in vain, sorry to say.

I've never personally flown anything larger than a Cessna 172XP. But I learned quick: You can't fight the trim. In a little plane like that you can offset it for a few minutes, but it will wear you out in short order. In a big commercial transport like the 737...I sure wouldn't want to encounter that situation outside of a simulator. But Boeing deliberately avoided requiring simulator training on that new system.... 

Forget stock prices. The Boeing executive suite needs to be in jail.


----------



## jis

The bottom line AFAICT is that the band aid fix that Boeing came up with and FAA certified after the Lion Air crash was not adequate to recover.

Boeing's reputation will take a while to recover fully when it comes to the 737, though its wide body side of the house seems to be unaffected, and FAA's reputation lies in tatters. So much so, that even the FAA administrator has now gone out of their way and formed a review team for the MAX consisting of experts from around the world with no connection to FAA or Boeing. This indicates that FAA has no confidence that absent such action its lead would be followed by the regulatory agencies around the world.

Really, it is unprecedented where every agency of the world grounded the MAX before the FAA could get around to it. And at the end of the day the optics was that they were dragging their feet because their favorite gold winged boy was the culprit who they did not want to really regulate, but instead protect from the pitch fork brigade around the world, come heck or high water.

There was the old tried and tested method of first blaming the third world, poorly trained pilots etc. etc. and hope that everything else can be swept under the rug. Well it does not work when your biggest customers are not in the US anymore, and they have powerful incentive to push back. So China pushed back - currently the largest fleet of MAXs are under Chinese regulatory control. Soon thereafter every Asian agency pushed back and the Europeans did too, leaving FAA (and Boeing) dangling in the wind. And more alarmingly, China has withdrawn its airworthiness certificate for the MAX. So in China the MAX is not temporarily grounded. It is an aircraft with no airworthiness certificate. It will have to go through the entire certification process. And soon after that they placed a huge order for Airbus aircraft. Interesting times.

Meanwhile, a major matter of concern in the US should be whether Regulatory Capture is going on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture


----------



## Ryan

I don’t think that the concern is over if it is happening so much as it is over the extent that it is (speaking for myself, of course).


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Really, it is unprecedented where every agency of the world grounded the MAX before the FAA could get around to it. And at the end of the day the optics was that they were dragging their feet because their favorite gold winged boy was the culprit who they did not want to really regulate, but instead protect from the pitch fork brigade around the world, come heck or high water.



Unprecedented but not unexpected. The 737 Max enjoys a mix of grandfathered designs, self-tested modifications, and proudly indifferent oversight. I wouldn't be surprised if an aircraft builder and airline protection bill is floated at some point to help ensure that future passenger awards are capped well below the cost of doing business. Can't have working class families collecting substantial monetary payouts for deaths due to natural causes like corporate negligence and regulatory impotence. If anything is truly unexpected it's that the FAA hasn't re-certified unmodified 737 Max aircraft for domestic _Freedom Flights_ just to show the rest of the world how amazingly great we are.


----------



## jis

Yeah. In the extreme exceptionalist mood, somehow those questioning the MAX at some point may be characterized as some undesirable kind and have trade sanctions placed on them too, given the idiocy that is the US Government these days. But I digress. I fervently hope that things will not come to that, since even in the extreme that would be unbecoming of Boeing. But who knows?

Fact of the matter is that I doubt MAXs will get a rubber stamp re-certification in China, and possibly not even in Europe, and Asians might follow China rather than FAA on this one.

The whole series of missteps happened because from a marketing perspective it was critical to certify the MAX as just another 737, which implied it must not require separate pilot training. Trying to achieve that with a plane that has some significant CG problems due to placement of the larger fan engines on its wing is what led to the need for the MCAS, and of course one could not even mention it to the pilots in training material because that would require additional training different from the NG. That is the genesis of this infernal mess where common sense was trumped by marketing and commercial necessities, and it was just a matter of time before a bunch of people died at the alter of business needs.

Requiring some automation to stabilize a plane and keep it well within safety envelope is nothing new. All swept back wing jets have a had some automatic yaw damping, barring a few rare exceptions. But keeping the thing secret from pilots is the new twist in case of the MAX. And that was purely to get the mythical 737 type rating requiring no additional pilot training. Nature has a way of derailing all such less than honest plans even if they are fervently believed by some, unfortunately. Meanwhile we still await the result of the criminal investigation thatis going on in connection of the dvelopment and cdertification of the MAX.


----------



## Dakota 400

Bob Dylan said:


> It's looking like the Answer to your questions is Yes!!!
> 
> See the CEOs Mea Culpa today!



I did see the CEO's statement today and that was one more reason why I decided to start this thread.

The comments posted by others have been enlightening to me. I appreciate them.
jis mentioned that a "criminal investigation" had been started related to the development and certification of the MAX. I was not aware of that.


----------



## jis

I don't believe there have been any indictments or anything like that, but I read that there has been a vast sweep of subpoenas covering essentially all communications involved in certain relevant aspects of development and certification process related to the recent crashes. What the conclusions of the investigations are will determine whether there will be any further action in the form of indictments or such. What we have not heard so far is any outcome of that investigation, which involves the FBI apparently. It is too early for all that I guess.


----------



## Asher

I agree with jis completely. ,larger engines and placement created a CG situation where systems were put in place to counteract. The $29,000 training price seemed to cause a penny wise dollar foolish effect that I feel has a lot do do with problem.


----------



## jis

Just FYI, from a guy in the know who posts on airliners.net ... Here is a list of the currently known investigations on MAX related issues that are ongoing:


> *The Fraud Section of the U.S. Justice Department’s Criminal Division* has convened a *grand jury *in a sweeping and aggressive criminal investigation into the jet’s certification that is being carried out by the *Transportation Department’s Inspector General*. The *FBI *has also joined that investigation and subpoenas have been issued.
> 
> The *House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure *has requested records from Boeing and the FAA as part of its investigation into the 737 MAX certification process.
> 
> The *Federal Aviation Administration *(FAA) has set up a review chaired by former National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Chris Hart and including experts from the FAA, NASA, and international aviation regulatory authorities to evaluate all aspects of MCAS, including its design and how pilots interact with the system.


Apparently the first of these investigations has even subpoenaed a guy who was on the 737 program more than two decades back and left Boeing 22 years ago, and has had nothing to do with Boeing or 737 since then. Apparently the scope of the investigation has spread wider than just the MAX.


----------



## GBNorman

I'm sorry, but this comment, as reported by the Associated Press, by the CEO of my "go to" airline, can only be considered "callous":



> The CEO of United Airlines says his pilots don't need any additional training on the new Boeing jet that is at the center of the investigation into a deadly crash in Indonesia.
> Oscar Munoz says that's because United's pilots are prepared to respond to problems that might surface with automated systems on modern planes.
> "When any trouble arises, our pilots are trained to fly the [email protected] aircraft, period," Munoz told reporters Wednesday.
> He said pilots are taught to disconnect automated systems, fly the plane by hand, and gain altitude to buy time while they trouble-shoot problems. He said the Boeing 737 MAX is safe and reliable.


----------



## bretton88

GBNorman said:


> I'm sorry, but this comment, as reported by the Associated Press, by the CEO of my "go to" airline, can only be considered "callous":


Maybe not callous, he's basically expressing total confidence in his pilots and his companies training methods, but the way he said it definitely seems tone deaf. He definitely could have expressed that better.


----------



## Trogdor

bretton88 said:


> Maybe not callous, he's basically expressing total confidence in his pilots and his companies training methods, but the way he said it definitely seems tone deaf. He definitely could have expressed that better.



When the Lion Air crash occurred, I recall AA and WN pilots complaining that they were unaware of this significant change to the 737 (MCAS), which wasn’t in any training or documentation they had received.

I don’t specifically recall UA pilots being a part of that thread. Not to say they didn’t complain, but just that I didn’t see any mention of it. That said, what I’m reading is that even Boeing’s recommended training post-LionAir was insufficient for the Ethiopian crash, so I’m wondering what UA included in its training that wasn’t in Boeing’s recommended training that would have had their pilots save the plane where the ET pilots couldn’t.


----------



## jis

Apparently you had to kill the entire automation stuff including MCAS early enough and hand fly the plane, thus of course also defeating the entire purpose of MCAS. A diligent airline could conceivably design a pilot training program, not that I am suggesting United did. But there are multiple reports in NASA’s anonymous incident reporting system describing how some pilots handled the nose down issue at the first inkling of trouble. Whether it was due to specific training or general airmanship expertise and extensive experience in seat of the pants flying, there is no way of knowing.

Remember that the same Lion Air aircraft that crashed the next day, with the same or similar problem the previous day, did not crash due to quick action by an apparently more experienced, or at least lucky third pilot who was in the cockpit that day.


----------



## GBNorman

It appears that part of Boeing's "pitch" to the airlines that signed up for MAX's was based upon the minimal training for pilots to be deemed qualified. They apparently led the airlines to believe no additional "sim" time was needed, and that a video would suffice.

"Sims" and "sim time" translate into $$$$$ - and no wonder various fledgling airlines "bit".

First, I'd like to think that Boeing has so much institutional expertise with which to address the issue (and I hope that Jishnu, with his apparent business connection with them, concurs) and that such will pass with time,. But that Boeing will learn for all time, that just because Attendants can be shown a video to update them on a new cabin configuration, the same does not apply to Officers.


----------



## jis

I just found a brief description of what happened on the Lion Air flight of the previous day that did not crash:


> Compare the FDR data for JT043 - the Lion Air flight that survived after correctly hitting the stab trim cut out switches.
> 
> The exact point at which the switches were thrown is not specified, but either side of the data line at 14:33:54 there are indications of MCAS trim down, manual electric trim up, and finally manual trim wheel up (inferred).
> This was followed by 60 minutes of level flight, with stable trim conditions, and no MCAS input ! (and no electric thumb switch operation either)
> 
> During the 30 min descent from altitude, MCAS attempted to operate sporadically (four times) with no effect. Another oddity.
> Meanwhile the actual pitch trim was controlled manually (by trim wheel).
> 
> And they all lived happily ever after.



Further discussion in the airliners.net thread suggested that what is claimed to be MCAS attempting to operate on descent was actually another system (STS), but the power cutout to the entire trim automation effectively disabled it, and the pilots did what was necessary by the manually operated trim wheel.

This same plane crashed the following day when the crucial step of hitting the stab trim cutout switch early in the sequence of events after takeoff, did not take place.

Meanwhile the impact of the fiasco is widening... MAX production rate being reduced, probably not the last reduction either.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ax-aircraft-production-cut-nearly-20-per-cent

Today's (4/7/19) Guardian also has a very good article with a very concise description of the issue that caused the crashes and what went wrong during the development and certification process. The reason I am refraining from posting it here is because of the political content in the article, which BTW IMHO is spot on, but is beyond the scope of this forum. Anyone interested can go look it up a the Guardians web site.


----------



## GBNorman

This  Journal columnist, Holman Jenkins, has presented thoughts that Boeing, long known for building "Pilot's planes", acceded to the Airbus philosophy of building "operator's flight equipment":

Fair Use:



> ..
> To make sense of Thursday’s press conference in Addis Ababa defending the actions of the crew aboard Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, it may be wise to consider the views of a group of pilots and consultants interviewed by the Seattle Times.
> 
> They argue that a pilot could have disabled an errant software system in Boeing ’s 737 MAX and still not have been able to recover if the aircraft’s speed and configuration were imposing more force on the tail surfaces than could be overcome by hand-cranking the trim wheel.
> 
> A solution reportedly had been spelled out to pilots of the 707 and early 737 models but not pilots of later 737 models: Relax pressure on the control column briefly to free up the trim wheel. Repeat until the plane was back in trim.
> 
> If this account is accurate, it explains why an experienced Ethiopian Airlines pilot, who had been briefed on how to handle a failure of Boeing’s MCAS software after last year’s Lion Air crash, could not save his plane. In fact, he may have been reduced to turning the defective MCAS back on in hopes of freeing up the trim wheel


----------



## GBNorman

> Today's (4/7/19) Guardian also has a very good article with a very concise description of the issue that caused the crashes and what went wrong during the development and certification process.



Jishnu, are you addressing the Opinion piece dated April 7 by columnist Will Hutton presently appearing at the Manchester Guardian's site?


----------



## jis

Yes. The Will Hutton piece. Focusing on the technical and factual description of events in it, and leaving aside the sociopolitical opinions for the moment.... I did not provide a reference link to it since disentangling the two has to be done carefully, and inevitably the discussion would veer off on the easier pissing contest instead of remaining focused on the safety technical issues.

BTW, things seem to have finally started affecting medium term plans. American and United have basically removed the MAXs from active consideration for scheduling until June. There are some that now believe that the outage will be six to nine months, maybe a bit shorter in the US. Maybe a little longer in Asia, where China in the worst case scenario seemingly plans to do a certification of the MAX ground up, not harking back to similarities with any previous 737s.

The requisite downgrades of all concerned in the stock market followed this morning according to: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/sou...-market-perform-over-boeings-737-max-jet.html


----------



## GBNorman

Take a look at this article appearing today in The Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/business/boeing-737-max-.html

Fair Use:


> The 737 Max is a legacy of its past, built on decades-old systems, many that date back to the original version. The strategy, to keep updating the plane rather than starting from scratch, offered competitive advantages. Pilots were comfortable flying it, while airlines didn’t have to invest in costly new training for their pilots and mechanics. For Boeing, it was also faster and cheaper to redesign and recertify than starting anew.
> .....The Max also runs on a complex web of cables and pulleys that, when pilots pull back on the controls, transfer that movement to the tail. By comparison, Airbus jets and Boeing’s more modern aircraft, such as the 777 and 787, are “fly-by-wire,” meaning pilots’ movement of the flight controls is fed to a computer that directs the plane. The design allows



It simply appears that each 737 design was a "patch over" of whatever system within the aircraft needed to be changed in order to make the new version marketable.


----------



## Dakota 400

GBNorman said:


> Take a look at this article appearing today in The Times:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/business/boeing-737-max-.html
> 
> Fair Use:
> 
> 
> It simply appears that each 737 design was a "patch over" of whatever system within the aircraft needed to be changed in order to make the new version marketable.



Thanks for posting this article. While I realize that the "final" verdict on what happened with these two accidents is much time in the future, the article reinforces my decision to send Boeing a "no confidence" vote for this month's annual shareholders meeting.


----------



## DooBdoo

Note for the record . . . American, United and Southwest PILOTS - the only US carriers flying the 737Max - have never reported any incident of an equipment malfunction as described by Lion Air and Ethopian Air. In fact United and American executives issued statements/video stating their pilots had received proper training, that there were no incidents and that Boeing taught them to push two green buttons together on the right side of the console to turn off the automatic function after it had been activated on takeoff. I personally spoke with a SouthWest 737max pilot who said they have had no incidents and the training was done via iPad update. . . complete with how to override. . . . 

It is illogical that Boeing would assume the risk of nearly 5000 aircraft defective deliveries through stupidity or otherwise deliberately rushing changes. Even pure Greed is outweighed by the potential business-ending litigation!


----------



## jis

It would appear that pressing said two buttons would take the very system that makes the MAX certifiable at all, off line. That sure sounds a bit weird if one asks me. I don't see any logic in the claim that there was no incident. Actually each time those buttons had to be pushed during a commercial flight, it was an incident, since it took the plane into an uncertifiable state. How many times were those buttons actually pressed by pilots transforming the plane into a non-certifiable aircraft while in commercial flight?

Anyway, the speculation now is grounding for six to nine months notwithstanding all the brave pronouncements.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

> It is illogical that Boeing would assume the risk of nearly 5000 aircraft defective deliveries through stupidity or otherwise deliberately rushing changes. Even pure Greed is outweighed by the potential business-ending litigation!



Famous last words....

The problem with design engineers is there not the ones who are using the equipment. So this system make prefect sense to a engineer but the operator is completely bewildered by it.

Fact check the Max 8 and Max 9 have report of problems with the cruise control on takeoff. These reports are from US based airlines, and were report to the NASA website. The aircraft will pitch down with out pilot input. This was corrected when the pilot when manual. Not the same system as the one getting finger point in these crashes. Just another system that was designed to override the pilot if certain conditions occur.


Boeing best solution would be to do a complete redesign of the aircraft to fit the new heavier engines. That is reported to take 10 years to do so. In 10 years the green plan may remove the need for short haul airplanes, Elon’s BFR could destroy the long haul flights.


----------



## jis

Here is a reference to the article that references two entries in NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System about uncommanded pitch down movements after take-off with the autopilot engaged - see https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2...ecord-about-problems-with-the-737-max/584791/

BTW, now share owners in Boeing are also getting into the act apparently:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-e...ver-737-max-crashes-disclosures-idUKKCN1RL31D

A short quote from an opinion posted on airliners.net by xmp125a in response to a pertinent question, which sort of rang a bell for me:



> What's the difference if it was controlled with FBW or by MCAS changing the trim? MCAS, in its designed role, accomplishes essentially the same thing that a FBW system would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In FBW systems there are no mechanical fallbacks (like the infamous trim wheel in 737). Therefore, any FBW aircraft has to fulfill much more stringent criteria regarding to sensors, computers and actuators. Apparently in FBW it is standard that sensors and even computers are in triplets, so not only a failure of single sensor can be detected, it can also be made inconsequential by voting (e.g. the system compares all 3 sensors and disregards the one that is furthest away from the other two).
> 
> What Boeing did is a very bad mashup of old and new technology. They introduced MCAS, but in theory it is not the FBW aircraft so MCAS is not a necessity unless in a very specific circumstances. In theory, the cockpit could have one big red button "all computers meddling with controls off" and would be still flyable. That encouraged thinking "but pilots can disable MCAS", which indeed it is true. BUT due to certification requirements and desire for common type certification prevented exactly this - there is no "MCAS OFF" button. There are only electric trim disable switch(es), which makes situation more complex (it disables both MCAS influence AND electric trim). But even that, in the eyes of Boeing engineers, was not an issue, because there is always a trim wheel to fallback to...
> 
> Except, it turned out that a) trim wheel is almost never used b) has been made smaller with increasing computerization of the cockpit (and because it is never used) which resulted in c) the mechanical fallback was suddenly extremely difficult way to recover from the MCAS malfunction.
Click to expand...


----------



## jis

Interesting article in NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/business/boeing-faa-mcas.html

Apparently neither FAA nor even Boeing's own test pilots were told about the final changes that created the death trap - i.e. changing the stab from 0 deg to 2.5 deg in 10 sec!

And speaking of American pilots not worrying about it, here is what American Airlines Pilot's Union spokesman had to say about that:



> “That’s a huge difference,” said Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the American Airlines pilots’ union, who has flown 737s for a decade. “That’s the difference between controlled flight or not.”



Some additional pertinent quotes.... [mods: if you think too much has been quoted please feel free to edit out all the quotes below. They are afterall, all in the article, but I thought it is worth highlighting]



> While it was designing its newest jet, Boeing decided to quadruple the power of an automated system that could push down the plane’s nose — a movement that made it difficult for the pilots on two doomed flights to regain control.
> 
> The company also expanded the use of the software to activate in more situations, as it did erroneously in the two deadly crashes involving the plane, the 737 Max, in recent months.
> 
> None of those changes to the anti-stall system, known as MCAS, were fully examined by the Federal Aviation Administration.





> “In creating MCAS, they violated a longstanding principle at Boeing to always have pilots ultimately in control of the aircraft,” said Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the retired pilot who landed a jet in the Hudson River. “In mitigating one risk, they created another, greater risk."



and



> The missed risks, by the F.A.A. and Boeing, flowed to other decisions. A deep explanation of the system wasn’t included in the plane manual. The F.A.A. didn’t require training on it. Even Boeing test pilots weren’t fully briefed on MCAS.
> 
> “Therein lies the issue with the design change: Those pitch rates were never articulated to us,” said one test pilot, Matthew Menza.



If all this is true, frankly, this is beyond scandalous. As someone half-jokingly said, such things should not happen even in the lawn mower industry.


----------



## Ryan

DooBdoo said:


> In fact United and American executives issued statements/video stating their pilots had received proper training



Contrast that from actual words from an actual pilot (taken from the ASRS reports quoted in the above article):


> This was the first flight on a Max for both pilots. Unfamiliarity with flight deck displays led to confusion about display annunciations and switch function. The Flight Manual does not address at least one annunciation, or the controls for the display—or if it does, neither pilot could find the explanation. I have spent literally days looking for an explanation, could not find one, and that is why I wrote this report. It shouldn't be this hard to figure out what I'm looking at.





> Finally, in the Captain's preflight procedure in the bulletin, it says, "Selector... C". What selector is this referring to? Is this the same selector under the Fuel Flow switch, (which is shown in the MAX panels on the L position, as if that is the normal position?) This is very poorly explained. I have no idea what switch the preflight is talking about, nor do I understand even now what this switch does.
> 
> I think this entire setup needs to be thoroughly explained to pilots. How can a Captain not know what switch is meant during a preflight setup? Poor training and even poorer documentation, that is how.



"Proper training", my arse.


----------



## jis

An excellent article explaining in relatively simple language what most likely went wrong leading to the Boeing 737 MAX fiasco, and the continuing saga of trying to recover from it:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace...37-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer


----------



## caravanman

I LOVE that article above. Seems sane and honest, written by someone who is both a pilot and software developer.


----------



## jis

Boeing abandoned its revised financial outlook for 2019 and did not provide a new one on Wednesday (24 April, 2019) pending better understanding of the impact of the MAX incidents and its fallout.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-b...utlook-after-737-max-groundings-idUKKCN1S01FQ


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Boeing abandoned its revised financial outlook for 2019 and did not provide a new one on Wednesday (24 April, 2019) pending better understanding of the impact of the MAX incidents and its fallout.
> 
> https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-b...utlook-after-737-max-groundings-idUKKCN1S01FQ



As a Boeing shareholder, this is not good news. I still have faith in the Company, but I voted my proxy directly opposite to what the Board of Directors recommended. I hope other shareholders--including those institutions that hold far more shares than mine--do as well. Something at Boeing is amiss in Chicago. This is an excellent opportunity for shareholders to express our misgivings to the Company.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dakota 400 said:


> As a Boeing shareholder, this is not good news. I still have faith in the Company, but I voted my proxy directly opposite to what the Board of Directors recommended. I hope other shareholders--including those institutions that hold far more shares than mine--do as well. Something at Boeing is amiss in Chicago. This is an excellent opportunity for shareholders to express our misgivings to the Company.


It's called Corporate Greed!


----------



## jis

Oy vey! Boeing is digging itself deeper into the doo doo. This is even further beyond unbelievable. But truth sometimes is stranger than fiction...

https://qz.com/1608362/boeing-says-it-didnt-deactivate-standalone-aoa-safety-alert/

This one makes Boeing look like the dunce that couldn't shoot straight even if he tried really hard to do so. Sigh...

Boeing's work on the software update is now looking more and more like another Brexit exercise I am afraid.


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Oy vey! Boeing is digging itself deeper into the doo doo. This is even further beyond unbelievable. But truth sometimes is stranger than fiction...
> 
> https://qz.com/1608362/boeing-says-it-didnt-deactivate-standalone-aoa-safety-alert/
> 
> This one makes Boeing look like the dunce that couldn't shoot straight even if he tried really hard to do so. Sigh...
> 
> Boeing's work on the software update is now looking more and more like another Brexit exercise I am afraid.



As a Boeing shareholder and consumer of their products, I am sorry to say that I agree. I have asked my broker to try to obtain the results of the Shareholders votes for 2019 and 2018 for comparison purposes. 2019: 34% voted for an Independent Chairman; that's a larger percentage than I recall from previous votes on this issue.

I am not impressed by the CEO/Chairman's statement that a committee of Directors has been formed to deal with the issues now coming forth. Those Directors and their lack of proper involvement with the Company have responsibility for this mess and the loss of life that has occurred.


----------



## B757Guy

As someone with over 16,000 hours flying Boeing aircraft, including the 737, I am beyond disappointed with my onetime favorite company in the world...


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

B757Guy said:


> As someone with over 16,000 hours flying Boeing aircraft, including the 737, I am beyond disappointed with my onetime favorite company in the world...




This right here is Boeing biggest problem. The lost of faith in a product. This story just keeps get worse, and worse. The only plus side is there not much choice of aircraft builders. Not sure if that can save the Boeing brand.


----------



## Dakota 400

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> This right here is Boeing biggest problem. The lost of faith in a product. This story just keeps get worse, and worse. The only plus side is there not much choice of aircraft builders. Not sure if that can save the Boeing brand.



Nothing that I have posted ought to be construed as any of my thoughts are that the Boeing brand ought to fail. Too many success stories across many different Boeing Divisions for too many years: it's a Company that will overcome this adversity with the 737 MAX. However, I hope that this issue will serve as a Board of Directors and Senior Management "kick in the rear" to be better overseers of what is taking place beyond the Board Room and Corporate Office in Chicago.

My Boeing shares are held by a financial firm. I am very unhappy, shall I say very, very unhappy, that I am unable to learn the results of the election proposals at the very recent Annual Meeting through my broker. As a result of the recent 737 MAX issues, I would like to know if other shareholders--large and small--agree with me that the Directors and Officers in Chicago need to be "more on task", perhaps, with other concerns other than long range, strategic plans.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dakota 400 said:


> Nothing that I have posted ought to be construed as any of my thoughts are that the Boeing brand ought to fail. Too many success stories across many different Boeing Divisions for too many years: it's a Company that will overcome this adversity with the 737 MAX. However, I hope that this issue will serve as a Board of Directors and Senior Management "kick in the rear" to be better overseers of what is taking place beyond the Board Room and Corporate Office in Chicago.
> 
> My Boeing shares are held by a financial firm. I am very unhappy, shall I say very, very unhappy, that I am unable to learn the results of the election proposals at the very recent Annual Meeting through my broker. As a result of the recent 737 MAX issues, I would like to know if other shareholders--large and small--agree with me that the Directors and Officers in Chicago need to be "more on task", perhaps, with other concerns other than long range, strategic plans.


People need to go to Jail over this one!


----------



## jis

I think it is way more important to learn from this and make changes in the institutional behavior so that this is not repeated, than figuring out who to put in jail. Sending a bunch of people to jail while not understanding and fixing the institutional issues will fix nothing.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

How about just design a new aircraft that will be in balance with these engines. Not needed two different computers to take charge of the aircraft seem the best long term solution. Everything seem to be a work around for the bigger heavier engines.


----------



## jis

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> How about just design a new aircraft that will be in balance with these engines. Not needed two different computers to take charge of the aircraft seem the best long term solution. Everything seem to be a work around for the bigger heavier engines.


There is such a plan but it is post 2025 introduction at the earliest.

Incidentally, here is a new article from Seattle Times on the issue of Boeing culture and the CEO's responsibility etc.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...wn+future_5_6_2019&utm_term=Active+subscriber


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> There is such a plan but it is post 2025 introduction at the earliest.
> 
> Incidentally, here is a new article from Seattle Times on the issue of Boeing culture and the CEO's responsibility etc.
> 
> https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/as-the-max-crisis-drags-on-boeings-ceo-faces-questions-about-his-own-future/?utm_source=marketingcloud&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TSA_050719041140+As+the+737+MAX+crisis+drags+on,+Boeing’s+CEO+faces+questions+about+his+own+future_5_6_2019&utm_term=Active+subscriber



Thank you very much for posting this well written and informative article.

I recall there were concerns raised at the time the Corporate Headquarters were moved from Seattle to Chicago. If my memory is correct, one of those concerns was getting senior management too far from the day to day engineering and work taking place in Renton. It now appears that those concerns may not have been too far off the mark.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> I think it is way more important to learn from this and make changes in the institutional behavior so that this is not repeated, than figuring out who to put in jail. Sending a bunch of people to jail while not understanding and fixing the institutional issues will fix nothing.


On the other hand, one way to focus executives' minds on the need to change institutional behavior is to send badly behaving executives to jail. People in charge think they can get away with anything, and they usually do. That doesn't help change institutional behavior.


----------



## jis

As the saga unfolds many take full advantage of the opportunity of damaging their credibility even further during a Congressional hearing....

https://www.eturbonews.com/252204/s...tation-committee-hearing-on-boeing-737-8-max/

I think Elwell will be one of the primary fall guys, and rightfully so. Afterall he pretty much saw it fit to sit on his two thumbs until Trump kicked him in the butt. 

Now the cesspool that Boeing's program management of the 737MAX program had become, that is an entirely different matter, and who knows how that will get fixed, or if it will get addressed adequately at all? The fact that it was allowed to become so at the goading of possibly everyone all the way upto the Board is a pretty sorry state of affairs. An innate desire to try to sweep it under an appropriate set of rugs and carry one may be overwhelming.

And trust me, if you trace through all my posts on aviation at various places normally I have been in the past an unabashed Boeing fanboi, and continue to be so of their 777 and 787 programs, notwithstanding the Li battery issue, hoping against hope that the MAX malady has not infected those two programs.

I am also starting to wonder where the doomsday clock stands for Boeing's commercial aircraft division. I suspect they are too big to fail at this point, but the longer this drags on with people making fools of themselves at each step the worse its gets.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

No matter what happens to Boeing our government will simply bail them out with an endless supply of taxpayer debt.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Devil's Advocate said:


> No matter what happens to Boeing our government


AKA " Corporate Welfare"!


----------



## ehbowen

MARC Rider said:


> On the other hand, one way to focus executives' minds on the need to change institutional behavior is to send badly behaving executives to jail. People in charge think they can get away with anything, and they usually do. That doesn't help change institutional behavior.



Why is there not a "love!" button for this post? Few things are as effective at "changing institutional behavior" as the new CEO and Board members realizing that their predecessors are now doing 7 to 20 in a Supermax prison, not to mention being sued for their personal assets down to and including their dirty underwear! I can guarantee that "fines and reprimands," the latter of which will be ignored and the former passed on to customers, will NOT result in any kind of meaningful change!


----------



## Dakota 400

As a Boeing shareholder and having sent a request to their Investor Relations Office requesting the results of the votes recorded at the Annual Meeting and receiving no response in answer to my inquiry other than the initial "we've received your e-mail and will be in touch soon". Granted, I don't own millions of shares of Boeing. But, when Anheuser-Busch existed, this shareholder's request for information was honored and done so with appreciation. I didn't own millions of A-B shares then, either.


----------



## ehbowen

Dakota 400 said:


> As a Boeing shareholder and having sent a request to their Investor Relations Office requesting the results of the votes recorded at the Annual Meeting and receiving no response in answer to my inquiry other than the initial "we've received your e-mail and will be in touch soon". Granted, I don't own millions of shares of Boeing. But, when Anheuser-Busch existed, this shareholder's request for information was honored and done so with appreciation. I didn't own millions of A-B shares then, either.



No disinfectant quite as effective as sunlight....


----------



## Dakota 400

May 15th, a hearing during a committee of the House of Representatives involving administrators from the FAA and NSTB concerning the 737 MAX accidents: a site that I follow such issues concluded from the testimony that the NSTA is singularly concerned about aviation safety; the FAA, not so much.


----------



## jis

Dakota 400 said:


> May 15th, a hearing during a committee of the House of Representatives involving administrators from the FAA and NSTB concerning the 737 MAX accidents: a site that I follow such issues concluded from the testimony that the NSTA is singularly concerned about aviation safety; the FAA, not so much.



Are both NSTA and NSTB both supposed to be NTSB?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dakota 400 said:


> May 15th, a hearing during a committee of the House of Representatives involving administrators from the FAA and NSTB concerning the 737 MAX accidents: a site that I follow such issues concluded from the testimony that the NSTA is singularly concerned about aviation safety; the FAA, not so much.



Like many other US regulatory agencies the FAA is intentionally hobbled with the often mutually exclusive motives of both regulating _and_ promoting the industry they oversee. Whereas the NTSB is tasked with clear and obvious goals but given no teeth with which to enforce their solutions. The system is not flawed or broken; it is operating in the precise manner for which it was designed. The fact that it requires a pile of dead bodies to fix anything is no accident.


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Are both NSTA and NSTB both supposed to be NTSB?



Sorry. I hit the wrong key. Meant to say NSTB and not NSTA.


----------



## Dakota 400

Devil's Advocate said:


> The system is not flawed or broken; it is operating in the precise manner for which it was designed. The fact that it requires a pile of dead bodies to fix anything is no accident.



I think the system is broken from what I have read. FAA is too cozy with Boeing. Boeing's current Executives are concerned about the corporate balance sheet and "beating Airbus" foremost.


----------



## jis

Dakota 400 said:


> Sorry. I hit the wrong key. Meant to say NSTB and not NSTA.


Nope. You actually meant to say NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) not NSTB.


----------



## basketmaker

Go back to cable and not wire. Still prefer Boeing vs Airbus but will take Amtrak whenever possible. Buy American.


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Nope. You actually meant to say NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) not NSTB.



Thanks for correction #2!


----------



## flitcraft

My husband worked at Boeing as an engineer for more than 30 years--now retired--and he's not at all surprised by what is unfolding. Among other issues, the continual re-working of the 737's design over the years has resulted in changes and modifications being made by recently graduated design engineers unable to read the legacy code of the original designs. As senior engineers have been pushed into retirement, no one who knows legacy code languages remain. At least the 787's were designed from the ground up! (Though the outsourcing of many aspects of the plane's design and manufacture created its own challenges with inconsistencies as the aircraft were assembled.) Still, I happily fly on the 787 myself. 

In another interesting twist, I was contacted by a media outlet concerning the fact that the Boeing CEO asked for and got the Board to pay for personal legal counsel for him. Clearly the only reasons why a CEO would need to worry about personal liability is if there was a risk of liability for fraud or if there is a potential for personal criminal liability. As a shareholder of Boeing (well, via community property!) I wonder why corporate funds are being used in that way...


----------



## Asher

flitcraft said:


> My husband worked at Boeing as an engineer for more than 30 years--now retired--and he's not at all surprised by what is unfolding. Among other issues, the continual re-working of the 737's design over the years has resulted in changes and modifications being made by recently graduated design engineers unable to read the legacy code of the original designs. As senior engineers have been pushed into retirement, no one who knows legacy code languages remain. At least the 787's were designed from the ground up! (Though the outsourcing of many aspects of the plane's design and manufacture created its own challenges with inconsistencies as the aircraft were assembled.) Still, I happily fly on the 787 myself.
> 
> In another interesting twist, I was contacted by a media outlet concerning the fact that the Boeing CEO asked for and got the Board to pay for personal legal counsel for him. Clearly the only reasons why a CEO would need to worry about personal liability is if there was a risk of liability for fraud or if there is a potential for personal criminal liability. As a shareholder of Boeing (well, via community property!) I wonder why corporate funds are being used in that way...


Yeah, I agree. They seemed to have gone to the well one too many times with that latest rev. Of the 37


----------



## jis

Basically, the last rev really needed to include a new wing and landing gear. But financially that was viewed to be a bridge too far apparently. So here we are where we are.


----------



## noflyzone

basketmaker said:


> Go back to cable and not wire. Still prefer Boeing vs Airbus but will take Amtrak whenever possible. Buy American.



"Buy American" ? What about all those starving workers at Huawei ???


----------



## jis

A relatively well balanced video on the Max 8 issue and the history of evolution of the relationship between the FAA and the industry, and the role played by the Congress and the President (s) fostering the development of the current state of affairs.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing...onths-trade-group-says-11559117714?mod=e2tweu


----------



## caravanman

This guy ought to know what he is talking about...

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/19/politics/chesley-sullenberger-boeing-737-max-scenario/index.html


----------



## Dakota 400

On NBC Nightly News this evening, more not encouraging news about the software fix for the 737 MAX.


----------



## jis

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-demands-for-boeing-before-max-can-fly-again

Looks like EASA plans to do its own evaluation and decision making on the MAX, and is not going to rubber stamp whatever the FAA says. In the process it may place additional requirements on Boeing. And all this even before one takes into consideration that the Chinese authorities plan to recertify the plane after a ground up evaluation.

Boeing still claims September, but as time passes that appears to be optimistic.

I noticed that in a November reservation that I have on a United itinerary there is a MAX9 on a MCO - IAH flight. Of course all that is subject to adjustments. I just had a 757 subbed in for a 738 on a EWR - MCO flight weekend after next.


----------



## PVD

UA doesn't even have too much left in storage....a few 319, a couple of 757, a 767, and a couple of 737-NG..


----------



## jis

They are getting a whole bunch of second hand A319s and 320s coming on line in the near future.

They lost one ETOPS 757 at Newark the other week on a botched landing. Apparently the damage is so severe that the plane will be scrapped.

My guess is by November that MAX may indeed be flying again, unless some other skeleton tumbles out of the cupboard.


----------



## jiml

Sister left last night on an A-319 subbing for 737MAX headed for Iceland. Seems like a long overwater flight for such a small plane, but I've been on worse.


----------



## jis

I have flown on a 737BBJ flown by PrivatAir on an LH flight code shared with United, all the way from Stuttgart to Newark one time. It was actually a very pleasant flight on the all Business Class plane. This was many years back.


----------



## PVD

United hadn't received too many Max at the time of the grounding. They can delay withdrawing the aircraft they would have retired when the new planes were delivered. They are probably affected less than many other airlines.


----------



## jis

They have 14 MAX 9s, and no MAX 8s.


----------



## NW cannonball

I don't fear Sun Country 737's but they are older.
If you want to see how old the basic 737 design is -- google "Boeing 737 trim wheels" or similar. The "Max" still has the semiautomatic hand-crank trim wheels and a procedure to nose-up -- nose-down the plane when those trim wheels get stuck -- because they are immovable under pressure. The automated system disabled that old-time pilot control and nobody told nobody.


----------



## ehbowen

NW cannonball said:


> If you want to see how old the basic 737 design is -- google "Boeing 737 trim wheels" or similar.



I know exactly how old the basic 737 design is...I was in diapers, and now I'm getting mail from AARP!


----------



## jis

United has now cancelled all usage of their Maxes through Nov 3.


----------



## drdumont

And American bought more Airbuses. I may have to fly crop dusters from Dallas to SFO to get to EMY for the August trip.
Where are all the MD-80s and 727s when we need them?
-- Oh yeah - - Davis Monthan and the Asian subcontinent.
Actually toying with DAL-LAX-SJC-EMY-CHI-NOL-SAS-DAL. 
Once can dream, can't one?


----------



## jis

Asian Subcontinent? What is that?


----------



## drdumont

Oh I guess just about anything South of China. I've seen a lot of the older planes on cargo and passenger lines in India, Pakistan, as well as all over the North African continent.


----------



## jis

drdumont said:


> Oh I guess just about anything South of China. I've seen a lot of the older planes on cargo and passenger lines in India, Pakistan, as well as all over the North African continent.


I am not aware of any significant passenger airline in India that uses anything older than 737s and A3xx's in their jet fleet. When did you go to India last? Which airlines specifically are you talking about? On an average the Indian domestic carriers at present have a newer fleet overall than the US airlines in the US. That is mainly because the largest domestic carriers (e.g. IndiGo, SpiceJet, Vistara, etc.) did not even exist 15 years back.


----------



## PVD

70 or so MD-88 still at Delta, along with a bunch of MD-90. The MD-83 TWA bought just before their demise (25+) almost all still soldier on at AA. Hawaiin and Delta fly about 120 of the 717 which is the renamed MD-95, the last MD derivative....


----------



## jiml

PVD said:


> 70 or so MD-88 still at Delta, along with a bunch of MD-90. The MD-83 TWA bought just before their demise (25+) almost all still soldier on at AA. Hawaiin and Delta fly about 120 of the 717 which is the renamed MD-95, the last MD derivative....


717 is a beautiful airplane, inside and out. AA MD-80's are still flying and remain a favorite of mine. Does anyone recall when they used to back away from the gate under their own power only at DFW? An interesting and noisy experience to say the least.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> 717 is a beautiful airplane, inside and out. AA MD-80's are still flying and remain a favorite of mine. Does anyone recall when they used to back away from the gate under their own power only at DFW? An interesting and noisy experience to say the least.


Yup, and remarkably wasteful of fuel.

Last flights of AA MD-80s are on Sept 3 and 4 this year.

https://www.gatechecked.com/book-fast-american-announces-schedule-of-final-md-80-flights-1587

Delta plans to take the MDs out of service after summer 2020. Don't know about their 717 plans. Very likely they will be around for a year or two more until Delta has received more C Series to replace the 717s with.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Yup, and remarkably wasteful of fuel.
> 
> Last flights of AA MD-80s are on Sept 3 and 4 this year.
> 
> https://www.gatechecked.com/book-fast-american-announces-schedule-of-final-md-80-flights-1587
> 
> Delta plans to take the MDs out of service after summer 2020. Don't know about their 717 plans. Very likely they will be around for a year or two more until Delta has received more C Series to replace the 717s with.


We recently lost our last AA MD-80 on the evening dinner flight to DFW in favor of a 738. AFAIK AA has not yet matched UA's delay announcement on the MAX's. When they do I can see a few MD-80's soldiering on for an additional couple of months.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> We recently lost our last AA MD-80 on the evening dinner flight to DFW in favor of a 738. AFAIK AA has not yet matched UA's delay announcement on the MAX's. When they do I can see a few MD-80's soldiering on for an additional couple of months.


According to AA that is not happening. They will just work around the MAX issue separately. Apparently there is some deadline coming up for mandatory requirement of some additional avionics on all commercial aircraft that the MD80s don't have and American is unwilling to pony up the funds to add them for just a few months. So Sept 3/4 is it.


----------



## PVD

ADS-B upgrade requirement I think. Very expensive on older aircraft, not worth it on a plane with a short service life with that carrier, and limited resale value.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> ADS-B upgrade requirement I think. Very expensive on older aircraft, not worth it on a plane with a short service life with that carrier, and limited resale value.


Yup. It is ADS-B upgrade. Very expensive.


----------



## PVD

Assumig that since 88's and 90s had upgraded cockpit electronics they are much less costly to upgrade which lets Delta keep them longer term. Just a guess, but it would make sense.


----------



## jis

Yeah. But even without the deadline looming for them they are dumping their 88s and 90s after the summer season 2020 since by then they will have enough replacement new acquisitions. The 717s last a little longer awaiting the delivery of more C-Series.

From some folks with inside knowledge's postings on airliners.net, apparently even though United has only removed MAXs from schedules upto Nov 3 (well they will remove, they haven't quite done so yet since one of my itineraries still has on in it), they have no idea when the MAXs will fly and contingency planning is afoot for doing without them till well into 2020. This involves postponing removal from service of the oldest A320s that were planned to leave the fleet last quarter this year. Also, 7 old 767s with Diamond BF seats that were scheduled to leave the fleet are apparently being retained for the time being. Relief will start arriving next year when the second hand fleet of A319/320s start coming on line.

WSJ has an article today speculating that the MAXs may remain grounded well into 2020. There are other industry rags that are speculating that if the grounding goes beyond the end of this year heads at Boeing will start rolling starting from the top. All speculations mind you.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> WSJ has an article today speculating that the MAXs may remain grounded well into 2020.


That is my understanding from an independent source. Then, realistically how will they convince the travelling public to trust them again until they've been back flying for awhile? The amount of press coverage this story has gotten will make it difficult to forget. Given a choice - MAX with Airline A vs. A-320 or regular 737 with Airline B may be a choice made with wallets.

I was not aware of the impending update required for the MD series... thanks for the info. I will miss them greatly.


----------



## drdumont

Just try and find an American flight without an Airbus to where you need to go these days unless it is a cropduster route. And American just ordered a bunch more. So I'll fly from DFW to the Bay Area on a couple of cropdusters so I can get to Emeryville. I just won't ride an Airbus.


----------



## jis

I actually like the A320s compared to 737s because of their slightly wider cabins giving a bit mor elbow room. But these are just a matter of personal taste as to whether more elbow room is important or not.


----------



## PVD

American has 300+ 737-800 still flying and 400+ A320 family. Very much dependent on which airports you frequent.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

PVD said:


> American has 300+ 737-800 still flying and 400+ A320 family. Very much dependent on which airports you frequent.


I'll be on a 737-800 in August from San Jose, CA to O'hare.


----------



## jiml

PVD said:


> American has 300+ 737-800 still flying and 400+ A320 family. Very much dependent on which airports you frequent.


Bingo!


----------



## jiml

drdumont said:


> Just try and find an American flight without an Airbus to where you need to go these days unless it is a cropduster route. And American just ordered a bunch more. So I'll fly from DFW to the Bay Area on a couple of cropdusters so I can get to Emeryville. I just won't ride an Airbus.


Until the MAX problems and the 787 assembly issues in SC, I was with you. Boeing has dropped the ball bigtime and it's going to take awhile to restore confidence. AA has an excellent fleet of Canadian-made "cropdusters" FWIW, in addition to the Brazilian ones.


----------



## PVD

Well, other than the 20 E-190 they inherited in the USAir merger, the other Canadian and Brazilian aircraft are not operated by mainline pilots. They are operated either by regional subsidiaries owned by AA or by contracted regional carriers all under the "American Eagle" branding....50, 70, or 76 seaters aren't my cup of tea, but not exactly cropdusters.


----------



## drdumont

PVD and others are spot on. AA does still fly Boeing aircraft to some destinations and sometimes it depends on which flight to a given destination. Problem is, where I need to go is all Airbus.
I really have no issues with the manufacturers such as Canadair and Embraer. When I go to Abilene or Houston or even Baton Rouge, I understand that a full sized aircraft doesn't make sense nowadays. And that's only an hour or less in a flying cigar tube. But on multi hour flights, I just prefer flying in something larger than said cigar tube, and nonstops at that. I like First Class, and for what I am paying, I prefer a full sized seat in a full sized aircraft, and Full First Class service.
But reality is what it is. So I'll use my miles, have a stopover or two, and think about what lies ahead. A bedroom on the Zephyr or the Empire Builder. That will kiss it and make it well.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

drdumont said:


> Where are all the MD-80s and 727s when we need them?


All your favorites can be *found right here... *



drdumont said:


> I just won't ride an Airbus.


That's a perk I hadn't previously considered.



jiml said:


> Boeing has dropped the ball bigtime and it's going to take awhile to restore confidence.


So long as the FAA continues to honor first party certifications, and allows favoritism to influence the speed and efficacy of corrective actions, any confidence regained is likely to be misplaced.


----------



## PVD

The regionals are very variable. The Embrarer E jets (not the ERJ 135/45) are generally pretty good as far as seats go. The Airbus A-320 family has an excellent track record flying for US carriers.


----------



## Seaboard92

Regional jets in my opinion have a tad more leg room. I should know I spend a lot of time flying on them.


----------



## jiml

The newer ERJ/CRJ models do have a bit more room on both my carriers of choice. However, the older ERJ-135/40/45 cigar tube models were pretty bad. Ditto the early CRJ models, which Air Canada still flies way too many of. On those ERJ/CRJ types there's usually no FC, so always worth the upgrade to the "more room" coach seats IMHO.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

When airlines buy "regional jets", they don't have any choices when it comes to interior seating configuration, like they do with the larger jets?


----------



## jis

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> When airlines buy "regional jets", they don't have any choices when it comes to interior seating configuration, like they do with the larger jets?



They do get to specify layout and what seat hardware to use, just like for other planes.


----------



## PVD

The same planes may be equipped in a number of different interior configurations. Sometimes you see multiple versions on the same airline. This applies both to RJ and mainline fleets.


----------



## Trogdor

Airlines can spec seats and layouts for regional jets, but for the 50-seaters, there’s generally less of a choice. I don’t know specifically about seat manufacturers, but in terms of layout and seat count, the planes were designed around 50 seats, and so that’s what you get. They could take a row of seats out, but that represents nearly a 10% loss in capacity (whereas one row on a larger plane may only be ~5% of capacity). So, the premium for an “Economy Plus” type of seat on a jet that already has a high cost per seat is going to be significantly higher. On the other hand, there isn’t any room to add a row, even with slimlines, as there isn’t enough extra space, and the planes are already at their maximum certified capacity (plus, going over 50 seats requires an additional flight attendant). Therefore, you’re pretty much wedged in right at the 50-seat count.


----------



## jis

Maybe that is why many airlines are progressively getting rid of 50 seaters.


----------



## jiml

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> When airlines buy "regional jets", they don't have any choices when it comes to interior seating configuration, like they do with the larger jets?


I don't believe that is correct. I know of several regional models that have different configurations specific to the airlines that fly them. This was a "hot button" topic on Flyertalk (AU for airline mileage people) many years ago as they were being rolled out. "Why does Delta have 9 FC seats on their RJ, United has 6 and AA has none?", and so on.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Maybe that is why many airlines are progressively getting rid of 50 seaters.


I really dislike the smaller range of commercial regional aircraft. They're noisy, bumpy, and uncomfortable with few options for improving your experience. That being said, larger regional aircraft provide FC and PE cabins along with a lack of middle seats in coach. The initial move to replace mainline routes with tiny regional jets pushed me away from domestic flying, but the resulting push-back from frequent fliers and inefficient CASM eventually led to larger regional aircraft with an improved experience that has brought me back into the fold. If you pick the right seats you can get some amazing legroom and only one neighbor on the larger regional craft.


----------



## caravanman

This little-known inventor has probably saved your life:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-49012771

Ed.


----------



## jis

Southwest has removed MAXes from their schedule through early January 2020. They say that the MAX is likely to get recertified in 4Q2019, but it will take them upto two months to re-induct them into their flight line.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/sou...th-hit-from-the-boeing-737-max-grounding.html

They also incidentally are shutting down their operations at EWR.


----------



## jis

Now Southwest pilots are privately saying that they don't expect to see MAXs in service before March 2020.

Meanwhile, a lot of unsavory facts are coming out about the extent of the regulatory and certification problems. Apparently Boeing managed to get FAA to exempt the MAX from meeting FAA's own certification requirements just so that they could claim that pilots do not need additional training.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...x-certification-requirements-for-crew-alerts/

A Boeing engineer has also come forward stating that Boeing management most likely knew about what they were pushing and its possible consequences, and chose to carry on regardless.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/business/boeing-737-max-crashes.html

No wonder trust in FAA's and Boeing's competence is being questioned by many.

Instead of "Unless it is Boeing I am not going", it is sounding more and more like "If it is Boeing I am not going". As Mark Anthony says in Julius Caesar - "What a fall was there my countrymen..."


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The wild west cowboy logic required to make this abdication of responsibility possible was already in motion a decade before the first MAX ever took flight. Some safety advocates spoke out, but the people in power chose not to listen. The real lesson to be learned is that _no lesson will be learned_ and we'll be right back where we started in another decade or two.


----------



## Dakota 400

There needs to be a very thorough housecleaning in the Executive Suites of Boeing as far as this shareholder is concerned. I registered my disgust with my proxy vote in April. It's time for those who hold major positions in Boeing to start to "shake the tree". Senior Executives, and maybe some less senior types, need to be replaced along with a Board of Directors who have been less than diligent in their duty.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dakota 400 said:


> It's time for those who hold major positions in Boeing to start to "shake the tree".


For every investor who wants to clean house for the benefit of consumers there are a thousand others who just want to find the best method for leveraging the controversy.


----------



## Seaboard92

It’s a good time to invest in Boeing. The more they struggle the lower the shares go. Boeing is too big to fail and the US Government won’t let it fail. It’ll come back up eventually. I did that with BP during the oil spill in the gulf and I think I did well for myself now.


----------



## Griffin T. Murphey DDS

Probably the two worst lemon airliners that killed a lot of people were the DeHavilland Comet and Lockheed Electra both of which had structural problems. Both were fixed and the Electra spin off the P-3 Orion had a long military service and I think Australia and Canada still fly some. Although the Comet was fixed the Boeing 707 was better and DeHavilland did not survive. Interestingly the USN’s replacement for the P-3 is a militarized Boeing 737, the P-8 Poseidon. Boeing also just flew a Naval air refueling drone so they have the military stuff to keep working with. I would not count them out yet, but losing a string of new planes IS bad JuJu.


----------



## jis

Interestingly, the two MAX crashes together has killed almost three times the total number of people killed in Comet I incidents combined. There were two major sets of defect caused crashes of Comet Is. The first set was due to loss of lift at high angle of attack during takeoff causing failure to get off the ground (at least two crashes attributed to this - Rome Campiano and Karachi), which was fixed in later Comet 1s. The second was due to fatigue crack at the corner of square windows causing structural failure of the fuselage (Elba and Naples), the better known issue which caused the grounding. There was an additional crash which had nothing to do with these two causes, but was due to extreme turbulence on a takeoff from Calcutta - Dum Dum (today's CCU), which caused the aircraft to lose its wings - unheard of today.

Square windows were replaced by oval windows and Comet IVs flew with many airlines. The derivative HS Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft were finally retired by RAF in 2011.

Hawker Siddeley became part of BAE and of course BAE contributes to Airbus. Indeed Airbus UK, which builds the wings for most Airbus planes (including the 32x family, 330, 340, 350 and 380) was originally part of BAE. The facilities are located in Filton (suburb of Bristol) and Broughton. So in some sense all Airbus planes have a bit of the Hawker Siddeley DNA.

Some additional interesting info..... Both the crashes on takeoff were initially blamed on pilots, but later the root cause was found to be aircraft design. The Comet 1 and 1A had also been criticized for lack of feel in their controls - a contributor to the Calcutta crash (a core issue driving the entire MCAS thing), which was fixed in later Comets. It should be recognized that the Comet was a revolutionary new aircraft, and experience of its early problems helped the likes of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas avoid those issues in the 707 and DC-8 as has been acknowledged by both.


----------



## Dakota 400

Seaboard92 said:


> It’s a good time to invest in Boeing. The more they struggle the lower the shares go. Boeing is too big to fail and the US Government won’t let it fail. It’ll come back up eventually. I did that with BP during the oil spill in the gulf and I think I did well for myself now.



I agree with your thoughts. I remain of the belief that those executives/managers at whatever level/members of the Board/whomever that allowed this situation to happen to the Company need to find other employment.


----------



## ehbowen

Dakota 400 said:


> I agree with your thoughts. I remain of the belief that those executives/managers at whatever level/members of the Board/whomever that allowed this situation to happen to the Company need to find other employment.


Like, say, a twenty-year career of making big rocks into little rocks.


----------



## jiml

ehbowen said:


> Like, say, a twenty-year career of making big rocks into little rocks.


...or making license plates.


----------



## Dakota 400

ehbowen said:


> Like, say, a twenty-year career of making big rocks into little rocks.





jiml said:


> ...or making license plates.



Maybe what might be worse is their conscious. "What did I do or did not do that contributed to the loss of life on those two planes?"

And, what about those of us who are small Boeing shareholders whose shares have fallen in value? A possible Class Action Suit in the future?


----------



## Asher

Regardless of when they get recertification, I have my own timetable. I'm over wondering what they did wrong, it's obvious they released this model 737 with the suggestion it was much like its predecessor, when in fact it is far from it. It'll fly, just not like the last model.


----------



## ehbowen

If Boeing were looking here for suggestions (ha!), mine would be to bring back and re-engine the 757. That airframe should have a lot more potential for future development. Of course, that would mean that the Southwest pilots would all have to be (re!) trained....

One other factor: Southwest essentially owns William P. Hobby Airport near my home in Houston. Due to its 1930s design and tight taxiway clearances, that airport is closed to any aircraft with a wingspan greater than 125 feet. The wingspan of the B-757, as previously built, was 124 feet 10 inches. Doesn't leave much room to play around for aerodynamic tricks.


----------



## jiml

ehbowen said:


> If Boeing were looking here for suggestions (ha!), mine would be to bring back and re-engine the 757. That airframe should have a lot more potential for future development. Of course, that would mean that the Southwest pilots would all have to be (re!) trained....
> 
> One other factor: Southwest essentially owns William P. Hobby Airport near my home in Houston. Due to its 1930s design and tight taxiway clearances, that airport is closed to any aircraft with a wingspan greater than 125 feet. The wingspan of the B-757, as previously built, was 124 feet 10 inches. Doesn't leave much room to play around for aerodynamic tricks.


The 757 is (soon to be was) a fine airplane - especially with the Rolls engines. Fuel efficiency was its undoing, although that got you incredible take-off and landing performance. They also have a luxury few single-aisles have - a second boarding door to isolate First Class. British Airways always used it; AA was hit-or-miss depending on airport.


----------



## jebr

jiml said:


> The 757 is (soon to be was) a fine airplane - especially with the Rolls engines. Fuel efficiency was its undoing, although that got you incredible take-off and landing performance. They also have a luxury few single-aisles have - a second boarding door to isolate First Class. British Airways always used it; AA was hit-or-miss depending on airport.



I flew on a 757 just over a week ago, back in coach. Delta didn't use the front door for boarding first class, but everyone boarded in the middle of Comfort+, so first class didn't have a ton of people walking through it. It's a nice plane, and I'm surprised that they haven't tried to retool it to be more fuel efficient.


----------



## jis

jebr said:


> I flew on a 757 just over a week ago, back in coach. Delta didn't use the front door for boarding first class, but everyone boarded in the middle of Comfort+, so first class didn't have a ton of people walking through it. It's a nice plane, and I'm surprised that they haven't tried to retool it to be more fuel efficient.


You don't consider the addition of winglets "retooling for greater fuel efficiency"? They have done that for most of their 757s that they intend to retain for a while.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> You don't consider the addition of winglets "retooling for greater fuel efficiency"? They have done that for most of their 757s that they intend to retain for a while.


I applaud the airlines that did this, since 757's still have a role in certain long "thin" international routes. Both AA's and United's front cabin reconfiguration for this application (lie-flat seats) have their merits, and there's something about a small cabin that improves the service. That having been said, it's a very long claustrophobic cabin in economy on a flight of more than a few hours.


----------



## jiml

With the MAX situation and the assembly issues with 787's, it is worthwhile to remember when Boeing did it right and built the best aircraft in the world. As has been mentioned, the 757 is an example, as is the 767 and my favorite - the 747. They used to be able to compete without cutting corners. Quite sad really...


----------



## jebr

jis said:


> You don't consider the addition of winglets "retooling for greater fuel efficiency"? They have done that for most of their 757s that they intend to retain for a while.



I was thinking more of a larger overhaul than adding the winglets - something akin to a new version number on the Boeing side. Not something I imagine Delta could do. The winglets certainly help, though.


----------



## Trogdor

The Boeing 757 is way too heavy to be economically competitive today.


----------



## jis

jebr said:


> I was thinking more of a larger overhaul than adding the winglets - something akin to a new version number on the Boeing side. Not something I imagine Delta could do. The winglets certainly help, though.



Boeing has discontinued the 757 line quite a while back. There is no chance if it getting revived since it comes nowhere near meeting the weight and fuel efficiency goals acceptable today. There is no hope for any version of it competing favorably with say an A321ULR. 

Boeing’s real problem is that they have neglected developing a real competition in both the space covered tenuously by the 737 (more through excellent marketing than technology) and 757. They are likely to pay dearly for it as time and cutting corners in doing yet another gen of 737 goes on ad infinitum.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jiml said:


> With the MAX situation and the assembly issues with 787's, it is worthwhile to remember when Boeing did it right and built the best aircraft in the world. As has been mentioned, the 757 is an example, as is the 767 and my favorite - the 747. They used to be able to compete without cutting corners. Quite sad really...


The 747 was an amazing accomplishment but early models had numerous issues and shortcomings that led to a long list of incidents, accidents, and complications. Boeing's decision to use uranium as a counterweight was especially questionable and unnecessary. Although relatively safe to knowledgeable maintenance personnel when fully intact, these designs were dangerous to passengers, bystanders, and first responders at 741 accident sites who risked unknowingly inhaling or ingesting radioactive dust. The fundamental design failures and flawed corrective actions involving early 747 Combi units were so difficult to defend the entire class is largely relegated to history. The 767 had serious thrust reverser issues that should have been caught in the testing and certification phase. Early model 737's suffered numerous rudder hardover events due to flawed actuators. I could go on but the point is that Boeing has never actually lived up to the nearly infallible status some fans insist on granting it. I'm not anti-Boeing or pro-whoever, I just think it's important to remember that manufacturers of critical systems are only as dependable as the regulations under which they operate. Give any manufacturer the ability to self-certify their critical system designs and safety protocols and you'll eventually suffer the repercussions of that decision.


----------



## jiml

It's fair to point out the exceptions, which all aircraft manufacturers have endured in the development of new models, however the current situation seems to tell of a culture of neglect at the company based on the need to impress shareholders. All the planes you've mentioned above have gone on to have long and historic careers. The 787 may recover from the "Renton builds only" buying strategy of North American airlines, but I wonder if the 737 MAX will ever fly again without significant modification.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> The 787 may recover from the "Renton builds only" buying strategy of North American airlines, but I wonder if the 737 MAX will ever fly again without significant modification.


Ironically not a single 787 has ever been built at Renton  Only Everett and Charleston.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Ironically not a single 787 has ever been built at Renton  Only Everett and Charleston.


I didn't research it further, but it was a direct quote from a recent article regarding the issues with the Charleston builds - loose wires, metal shavings, ill-fitting parts, et al. The author was stating that three major airlines (I believe AA and AC are two) have specified only 787's built in Washington state after having to do modifications in-house. He said Renton and I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that was accurate.


----------



## jis

Renton is where 737s including the MAX are assembled. Their fuselages are built somewhere in Kansas I believe and shipped to Renton by rail. There is really not enough space there to do any wide body at all. All of those are in Everett, until of course the 787 line in Charleston opened up. All 747s, 767s and 777s (including the Xs) and about half the 787s are still at Everett. I don't believe there are any plans of moving any of the CF wing fabrication for the 777Xs out of Everett either.

Speaking of ill fitting parts, the initial attempts to put together the first 787 was apparently borderline hilarious with parts misalignment by multiple inches and all that. Of course those problems were fixed pronto, and they have not faced any such problems with the 777Xs. There was a steep learning curve in doing an actual CAD driven manufacturing floor.


----------



## keelhauled

jis said:


> Their fuselages are built somewhere in Missouri I believe and shipped to Renton by rail.



Wichita, Kansas, by Spirit Aerosystems.


----------



## jis

keelhauled said:


> Wichita, Kansas, by Spirit Aerosystems.



Oh yeah right. Brain fart on my part. [emoji53]


----------



## jis

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ng-737-max-flights-until-jan-16-idUSKBN1WO1FX

So airlines are now removing the MAX from their schedules through January 2020.

There is some speculation now that they might need to do additional removals as time progresses. Some going so far as to speculate that it will be the 4th quarter of 2020 before MAXs get back in service. Of course we'll see how it goes.


----------



## railiner

Forgive my ignorance of the subject...but I have to wonder, if the 'fix' for the MAX is going to be very difficult, could it possibly be easier (and cheaper), to "downgrade" the existing aircraft into the previous 737 model? If even possible?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> Forgive my ignorance of the subject...but I have to wonder, if the 'fix' for the MAX is going to be very difficult, could it possibly be easier (and cheaper), to "downgrade" the existing aircraft into the previous 737 model? If even possible?


Treating the MAX like a previous 737 model is precisely how we ended up with this situation in the first place. The solution is to stop grandfathering endless modifications and re-certify from the ground up like a brand new design.


----------



## railiner

I understand that...but I meant physically rebuilding the aircraft...not just changing software or whatever fix it is that they are trying to do...
That may sound radical, but I don't know just what the differences are between the MAX, and the previous model....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> I understand that...but I meant physically rebuilding the aircraft...not just changing software or whatever fix it is that they are trying to do...
> That may sound radical, but I don't know just what the differences are between the MAX, and the previous model....


What makes the MAX competitive with the A320neo is the new larger fan engine, which is what causes the aerodynamics to change which causes the need for MCAS to make the aircraft have the same feel as the NG. If you basically revert back to NG you can expect most of your orders to vaporize since there is no compelling reason to buy the aircraft anymore except for a few cases of filling holes in seat inventory while Airbus cranks up their production of 320neos.

The other fix is to accept this as a new aircraft avoiding all the needs for meeting grandfathering requirements and carrying the baggage of 40 years along with you, and actually have a better safer aircraft. But that is too expensive and Southwest will not like the cost of extra training that their pilots will need apparently.


----------



## railiner

I was just considering the MAX aircraft that were already built, and are grounded...not future builds. But now the NG aircraft are also under scrutiny for cracks found in their frame components...boy, Boeing is not having a good year...

https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresnevicius/24050-boeing-737-ng-affected-pickle-forks


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Perhaps we should stop worrying about Boeing's bad year and give some genuine consideration to the _hundreds_ of innocent victims and _thousands_ of friends and family members who lost loved ones thanks to Boeing's carelessness.


----------



## Trogdor

railiner said:


> I was just considering the MAX aircraft that were already built, and are grounded...not future builds. But now the NG aircraft are also under scrutiny for cracks found in their frame components...boy, Boeing is not having a good year...
> 
> https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresnevicius/24050-boeing-737-ng-affected-pickle-forks



The 737MAX isn’t simply an NG with new engines. Boeing adjusted the wing, landing gear, APU, fuselage strengthening (to handle heavier weights), cockpit systems, some control systems, and a lot of other little internal stuff.

They are different enough that the cost of downgrading would probably be more than the cost of building a new one from scratch.


----------



## PVD

The 737 fuselage making the trip by rail from Kansas always sticks in my mind....In 2014 6 of them came off a train in a Montana derailment, with 3 actually going down an embankment to a river. All 6 were written off and recycled.


----------



## Dakota 400

NBC NIghtly News on October 11th didn't have a favorable report about the FAA's certification role in this plane.

My opinion which I have stated before on this Forum: the entire leadership of Boeing needs to be replaced and it is the responsibility of those of us shareholders, of whatever amounts, to do so. It is the responsibility of our Congress to replace the leadership and reform the FAA. All of this ought to be done with the interest of those of us who fly on a Boeing built plane.

And, what are the odds of this happening?


----------



## keelhauled

But wait, there's more!


Boeing Pilot Complained of ‘Egregious’ Issue With 737 Max in 2016, via the New York Times.


----------



## ehbowen

keelhauled said:


> But wait, there's more!
> 
> 
> Boeing Pilot Complained of ‘Egregious’ Issue With 737 Max in 2016, via the New York Times.


Manslaughter charges. For everyone in the senior engineering staff who did know, and for all the executives who should have known but were negligent...or, even worse, did know but were hiding behind a convenient "firewall".


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Charging a corporate officer with manslaughter is next to impossible. Shareholder revolt has a better chance.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Charging a corporate officer with manslaughter is next to impossible. Shareholder revolt has a better chance.


It's not technically impossible, in the same way it's not impossible to charge a police officer with on-duty murder, but you're going up against more than a century of protective corporate surrogacy. That means your successful conviction rate is going to be very low until the laws and legal perception changes. For these and other reasons prosecutors rarely bother, especially for medium and large sized corporations, but if that's what the people really want they can work to elect a government that shares those goals and values in about a year's time.


----------



## Dakota 400

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Shareholder revolt has a better chance.



That's what this shareholder did with the proxy vote this Spring. I voted opposite on every issue that the Board of Directors recommended. I will do it again in 2020. I am going to consider attending the Annual Meeting usually held in Chicago. Could be a rather interesting one to see "live and in person", I think.

(Also would be a good reason to ride the Cardinal.)


----------



## keelhauled

Why Is This Airplane Still Flying?’ The FAA Missteps That Kept Boeing’s MAX Aloft, from the Wall Street Journal.



> A Federal Aviation Administration analysis showed a good chance the same malfunction would crop up again [after JT610], according to agency officials and people briefed on the results. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the agency’s statistical models projected a high likelihood of a similar emergency within roughly a year.
> 
> Yet in the end, the FAA didn’t formally consider grounding the MAX or taking other drastic steps, based on the sketchy early information from the October 2018 accident. It simply reminded pilots how to respond to such emergencies.
> 
> [...]
> 
> In a critical misstep, FAA officials relied extensively on Boeing’s initial flight-simulator test results, some of the people said. Boeing largely used its cadre of highly experienced test pilots, an industry practice the FAA and accident investigators later acknowledged wasn’t appropriate to gauge how the other pilots would react in a real emergency.


----------



## Anderson

That article makes me wonder why the FAA (if they felt the need to "remind" pilots of how to deal with that situation) didn't at least require re-training.

(The irony of the FAA punting is that an airline disruption was almost assuredly greater with another two quarters of deliveries in hand.)


----------



## Dakota 400

keelhauled said:


> Why Is This Airplane Still Flying?’ The FAA Missteps That Kept Boeing’s MAX Aloft, from the Wall Street Journal.



There needs to be a rather thorough "house-cleaning" at Boeing, which has begun and which to needs to be extended in the opinion of this Boeing shareholder, and at the FAA. 

What is our Secretary of Transportation doing with regard to this serious issue? Isn't the FAA part of the jurisdiction of Secretary Elaine Chao's Department?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dakota 400 said:


> There needs to be a rather thorough "house-cleaning" at Boeing, which has begun and which to needs to be extended in the opinion of this Boeing shareholder, and at the FAA.
> 
> What is our Secretary of Transportation doing with regard to this serious issue? Isn't the FAA part of the jurisdiction of Secretary Elaine Chao's Department?


Remember, Sec Chao is Moscow Mitch's Spouse!! Where's he on this???


----------



## adamj023

Dakota 400 said:


> The more that I hear and read about these two accidents are concerning. It's concerning for me who often fly on a Boeing product. It's concerning me as a Boeing shareholder looking at my Proxy Card for the Annual Meeting and wondering if it's time to register a vote of "no confidence" in Management.
> 
> Company's financials look good, but what is the corporate culture? Is there some regulatory "coziness" between the Company and the FAA that is a contributing factor? Is trying to rush the development and deployment of an aircraft that competes with a similar Airbus aircraft a contributing factor?



The Boeing 737 Max is an incredible plane. Before the plane was grounded, all of the airborne planes in the same takeoff trajectory were flying without issue as per all trackable data. There was absolutely no reason to ground these planes as there was no design defect. The source code was never reviewed by an independent third party of the alleged MCAS failures. It would take a lengthy document to discuss what happened and actual possession of the airplane and a full review of the source code and all related electrical equipment onboard the plane to prove what really did happen but my belief without those is that the crashes were not an actual specific 737 Max design fault nor caused by the existing MCAS system in place and involves geopolitical interests such as Boeing being a huge Department of Defense contractor and other conflicting interests. If the MCAS system was really the issue, the fix would have been to completely disable the system and further flight training programs to know how to fly these jets without the system enabled. But instead, we see a huge delay even after they allege a software fix will resolve the problem. Its bogus. The public won’t fly these jets now and Boeing can’t admit what really happened. So I predict the 737 Max jets will likely be scrapped and recycled and perhaps some parts reutilized but they will never fly again. Airbus will get all the narrow body orders until Boeing comes up with a replacement jet, perhaps named as the 797. I would be really surprised if the 737 Max gets placed back into service even though design was safe to begin with as Boeing will do better by introducing a replacement jet which would be better for them at this point in time.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Reminds me in a way of the DC-10 troubles after the Chicago Crash when people were afraid to fly on them after that!

I flew many times on them, Fine planes and due to the lack of passengers after the Crash, I was upgraded to FC Regularly as a Frequent Flyer!!!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

In my view the original spec DC-10 could be case study in leverage over logic and profits over planning, but later variants eventually corrected many of the design flaws and were moderately successful. Too little too late for MD though. One benefit the 737 Max has over the DC-10 (and other flawed designs) is that it remains similar in size, shape, and name to other aircraft passengers are still flying without worry or fear. Frequent travelers and aviation enthusiasts can obviously tell the difference on sight alone, but your uncle and grandmother probably won't notice the differences unless they ask. Some safety modifications, testing and executive promises, a different name (Max Plus?), and a public relations campaign featuring pilots vouching for safety will persuade many passengers to eventually return. The primary problem, at least as I see it, is that merely cleaning house at Boeing won't actually change the dynamic that promotes safety shortcuts in the airline industry. In my view the conflict of interest at the FAA (regulate _and_ promote) needs to be removed from their charter and replaced with a directive to test and approve designs without trusting profit driven companies to keep passengers safe from profit driven risks. Unfortunately, we live in the era where many people believe almost all business is good business and almost all regulation is bad regulation, so we're virtually guaranteed to see yet another round of safety lapses in the future.


----------



## ehbowen

adamj023 said:


> The Boeing 737 Max is an incredible plane. Before the plane was grounded, all of the airborne planes in the same takeoff trajectory were flying without issue as per all trackable data. There was absolutely no reason to ground these planes as there was no design defect.


If there was/is no design defect, then why is it physically impossible to hand-crank the stabilizer trim back to a safe flight attitude if MCAS (or for that matter, any other system on the aircraft) wrongly runs away with the trim controls?

Edit To Add: And, oh yes, why is it that MCAS in its final form had to have FOUR TIMES the authority which Boeing engineers originally anticipated...and why was the FAA never notified of that "little" discrepancy?


----------



## jis

And why was the MCAS on the Max using input from a single AoA and not multiple ones as in the other uses of MCAS in a couple of previous cases e.g. in 767 derivatives?


----------



## Trogdor

That’s one of the most confusing, nonsensical posts I’ve read in a long time. The 737MAX is an incredible plane and there’s no reason for it to be grounded, yet for some reason that involves Boeing being a contractor for the DoD, every plane will be scrapped and Boeing has to cede all narrowbody commercial jet orders to Airbus for the next decade.

Riiiiiight.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Have any of our Member Pilots flown this Plane or the simulator? Boots on the ground info is always best!!!


----------



## adamj023

ehbowen said:


> If there was/is no design defect, then why is it physically impossible to hand-crank the stabilizer trim back to a safe flight attitude if MCAS (or for that matter, any other system on the aircraft) wrongly runs away with the trim controls?
> 
> Edit To Add: And, oh yes, why is it that MCAS in its final form had to have FOUR TIMES the authority which Boeing engineers originally anticipated...and why was the FAA never notified of that "little" discrepancy?



The plane correctly adjusts trim controls and the true cause was being masked by other causes where outside factors are to blame. The actual internal controls function as expected. If outside causation happens then manually adjusting the trim controls gives control back to the pilots. If the MCAS system was the issue then Boeing could have required all pilots to manually control the plane instead and disabled MCAS altogether which would be a permanent fix from the beginning. This would have been relatively easy to implement and would have required modifications that could have been started much earlier.


----------



## jis

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/boe...n-garamendi-warns.html?__source=facebook|main


----------



## adamj023

Power flows through Washington DC and there is a lot of corruption and incompetence. If it was up to me I would break up Boeing as a company as it is too large and unwieldy as a company.

Boeings key commercial aviation product as of now is the 787. Airbus is doing better with the A32X derivatives with upcoming LR and XLR, A330 is selling as well as A350 and the former Bombardier which is now A220 for its regional jets. Boeing is selling mostly 787 and a few 777. A380 was doing well in the past but I think sales are slow now along with the Boeing 747-8. The 737 Max is a bust. I would eliminate all 737 Max production if I was Boeing and reallocate to the 787 and future 797 perhaps or they can bring back the 737-700,737-800,737-900 with a refresh.


----------



## Dakota 400

Bob Dylan said:


> Reminds me in a way of the DC-10 troubles after the Chicago Crash when people were afraid to fly on them after that!



I do remember that and I will add the L-1011 to that list. I flew on both, a TWA L-1011 and a United DC-10. Both were comfortable planes on which to fly.


----------



## Dakota 400

Bob Dylan said:


> Remember, Sec Chao is Moscow Mitch's Spouse!! Where's he on this???



The Boeing issue has to be a very insignificant dinner table conversation between the two.


----------



## Ryan

adamj023 said:


> my belief without those is that the crashes were not an actual specific 737 Max design fault nor caused by the existing MCAS system in place



You've already demonstrated in other areas that your "beliefs" contradict actual evidence and veer wildly into conspiracy theorist playground territory.

Care to try and prove this one, or should we just continue to trust your thoughts and feelings?


----------



## railiner

If the airliner market has strong demand, and in view of Boeing's woes....perhaps now might be an opportune time for Lockheed Martin to get back into the market?
Curious what other's think of that....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> If the airliner market has strong demand, and in view of Boeing's woes....perhaps now might be an opportune time for Lockheed Martin to get back into the market? Curious what other's think of that....


My perperspective: The L-1011 nearly bankrupted Lockheed and any passenger aircraft designs they still possess will be decades behind the rest of the mainline commercial market, an industry which is driven by a completely different concept of cost and efficiency from Lockheed's military customers. Boeing has been allowed to grow so large that our government will be forced to keep them viable with taxpayer bailouts no matter what they do or who they harm. Even if Lockheed was willing to risk everything to reenter the commercial airline market, by the time they caught up with Airbus and Boeing (in design, financing, testing, manufacturing, outsourcing, and sales) any remaining backlog would be insufficient to maintain sustained profitability.


----------



## adamj023

Ryan said:


> You've already demonstrated in other areas that your "beliefs" contradict actual evidence and veer wildly into conspiracy theorist playground territory.
> 
> Care to try and prove this one, or should we just continue to trust your thoughts and feelings?



i normally wouldn’t respond to these comments and was about to ignore it. With that being said, my comments never did any of these things.

My points were clear. If an MCAS issue was affecting the jets, system could have been permanently disabled and pilots could have hand flown these planes with stringent flight training procedures. Different aircraft designs have different flight characteristics and pilots are trained specifically to equipment types they are certified for. And if this was true why issue a software fix instead of permanently disabling the system and making sure pilots can fly the jets.

Before the groundings, and after the two crashes I saw all movements of 737 Max planes and on takeoff which is where both crashes happened, no Max in the sky of all of them flying had any deviations caused by a failed MCAS system as relayed by any ads-b, radar, air traffic control data and so on and so forth. A failed trim control would have showed the plane making inappropriate maneuvers which would have been seen. Data is publicly available from multiple sources including Flightaware, Flightradar24 and others who retrieve data from multiple methods. The groundings were initiated from the federal government.

I attest to the fact that I would have myself flown on the Max without issue before the groundings on American Airlines for instance and never thought the planes should have been grounded and if if it was not grounded I still would have flown on the Max. I would never have flown on Ethiopian or Lion Air which are not the same quality as other airlines and also are in nations which have poor, well not sure exactly how to say or put this but poorly developed militaries and aviation systems as they can lose control of a jet like the 737 Max easily. We saw that also with Malaysia airlines as well where they lost a jet.

Data on all the air communications and flight data recording units on all Max flown flights would have told the true story. NY Times is full of trash and since when does an honorable news organization put an article behind a paywall. I have caught them in so many lies over the years and I do not pay for any of their content.


----------



## Trogdor

adamj023 said:


> i normally wouldn’t respond to these comments and was about to ignore it. With that being said, my comments never did any of these things.
> 
> My points were clear. If an MCAS issue was affecting the jets, system could have been permanently disabled and pilots could have hand flown these planes with stringent flight training procedures. Different aircraft designs have different flight characteristics and pilots are trained specifically to equipment types they are certified for. And if this was true why issue a software fix instead of permanently disabling the system and making sure pilots can fly the jets.
> 
> Before the groundings, and after the two crashes I saw all movements of 737 Max planes and on takeoff which is where both crashes happened, no Max in the sky of all of them flying had any deviations caused by a failed MCAS system as relayed by any ads-b, radar, air traffic control data and so on and so forth. A failed trim control would have showed the plane making inappropriate maneuvers which would have been seen. Data is publicly available from multiple sources including Flightaware, Flightradar24 and others who retrieve data from multiple methods. The groundings were initiated from the federal government.
> 
> I attest to the fact that I would have myself flown on the Max without issue before the groundings on American Airlines for instance and never thought the planes should have been grounded and if if it was not grounded I still would have flown on the Max. I would never have flown on Ethiopian or Lion Air which are not the same quality as other airlines and also are in nations which have poor, well not sure exactly how to say or put this but poorly developed militaries and aviation systems as they can lose control of a jet like the 737 Max easily.
> 
> Data on all the air communications and flight data recording units on all Max flown flights would have told the true story. NY Times is full of trash and since when does an honorable news organization put an article behind a paywall. I have caught them in so many lies over the years and I do not pay for any of their content.



Sorry, but your general understanding of the situation is flawed, at best.

First, if it was as simple as turning off MCAS, then MCAS would never have been developed in the first place. You need to research why MCAS was implemented on the 737MAX. It was to address certain control issues at high angles of attack, and without the fix, the 737MAX either couldn’t have been certified at all, or at best, couldn’t have been certified as a simple derivative (from a pilot training perspective) of the 737NG. The whole point was to allow 737NG pilots to switch to the max with a simple iPad training course. If they required significant additional pilot training, Boeing would be on the hook for millions of dollars in compensation to airlines (Southwest reportedly would be owed $1 million per plane if the 737MAX required simulator training). As it turns out, Boeing botched it in such a way that they’re still going to owe millions in compensation, but that’s not something they saw coming ahead of time.

Second, just because you saw a handful of planes flying just fine doesn’t mean that MCAS doesn’t have a problem. The issue with MCAS is that the angle of attack sensor providing MCAS with data failed. MCAS had no crosscheck with the other sensor. All of the planes you watched so diligently on Flightradar24 had working AOA sensors, hence no MCAS issue. The planes that crashed had a sensor failure.

As for articles behind paywalls, well, that would be virtually all newspapers these days. Back in the day, the “paywall” was buying the physical paper. Now, it’s the digital equivalent.

You’re also contradicting yourself in saying the 737MAX is an incredible airplane, and then calling it a bust at the same time. Further, saying that Boeing should scrap the MAX and refresh the 737-700/800/900, well, what the heck do you think the MAX is, if not a refresh of the NG series?


----------



## jis

A recent update from FAA regarding additional documentation from Boeing about problems with MCAS. 

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206


----------



## Ryan

Trogdor said:


> Second, just because you saw a handful of planes flying just fine doesn’t mean that MCAS doesn’t have a problem.



Yeah, but he claimed "I saw all movements of 737 Max planes", not just a handful. He's apparently devoted his life's work to watching airplanes in the sky.

Or he's stark raving mad.


----------



## jis

Here is a description from Boeing of what the MCAS system is for and the fixes to the faults, the existence of which Boeing admits to. 

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page


----------



## jis

What transpired at the Congressional hearing...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...th-ceo-response-new-allegations-boeing-update


----------



## adamj023

That is BS and you know it. The aviation industry started without any computerization or automation. Did any of those airplanes “require” any computer and automation? No, it didn’t exist until much later on. The theory that an MCAS system has to be “required” is totally incredulous. There have been many aircraft hull designs with different engines and weight distributions all built without MCAS systems. 

If we were back into an era where automation and computerization didn’t exist and a plane would never be able to fly without then then it is not airworthy and should never be flown. But with that being said, if you ran the Max without the system. of course pilots could make adjustments as necessary as humans do a better job and can account for variations. Engines have been placed in multiple locations without issues. Twin engine, three engine, four engine with 5th for transport and so on. You can fly a 747 with a 5th engine attached for transport. Military has done things like inflight refueling, and the list goes on of all things that can be done and we are told the Max design requires MCAS which is false. 



Trogdor said:


> Sorry, but your general understanding of the situation is flawed, at best.
> 
> First, if it was as simple as turning off MCAS, then MCAS would never have been developed in the first place. You need to research why MCAS was implemented on the 737MAX. It was to address certain control issues at high angles of attack, and without the fix, the 737MAX either couldn’t have been certified at all, or at best, couldn’t have been certified as a simple derivative (from a pilot training perspective) of the 737NG. The whole point was to allow 737NG pilots to switch to the max with a simple iPad training course. If they required significant additional pilot training, Boeing would be on the hook for millions of dollars in compensation to airlines (Southwest reportedly would be owed $1 million per plane if the 737MAX required simulator training). As it turns out, Boeing botched it in such a way that they’re still going to owe millions in compensation, but that’s not something they saw coming ahead of time.
> 
> Second, just because you saw a handful of planes flying just fine doesn’t mean that MCAS doesn’t have a problem. The issue with MCAS is that the angle of attack sensor providing MCAS with data failed. MCAS had no crosscheck with the other sensor. All of the planes you watched so diligently on Flightradar24 had working AOA sensors, hence no MCAS issue. The planes that crashed had a sensor failure.
> 
> As for articles behind paywalls, well, that would be virtually all newspapers these days. Back in the day, the “paywall” was buying the physical paper. Now, it’s the digital equivalent.
> 
> You’re also contradicting yourself in saying the 737MAX is an incredible airplane, and then calling it a bust at the same time. Further, saying that Boeing should scrap the MAX and refresh the 737-700/800/900, well, what the heck do you think the MAX is, if not a refresh of the NG series?


----------



## adamj023

https://static4.businessinsider.com...-onto-the-wing-of-a-boeing-747--heres-why.jpg

Changing the engine design requires MCAS? Did this Qantas plane require any modifications to fly this plane such as MCAS or a related system. No! Position of engines can affect handling but can not make plane unsafe to handle with pilots who understand the airplane.


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> Yeah, but he claimed "I saw all movements of 737 Max planes", not just a handful. He's apparently devoted his life's work to watching airplanes in the sky.
> 
> Or he's stark raving mad.



I am leaning towards the latter, using the proof technique of “reductio ad absurdum” since the former is demonstrably impossible. [emoji51]


----------



## Ryan

adamj023 said:


> https://static4.businessinsider.com...-onto-the-wing-of-a-boeing-747--heres-why.jpg
> 
> Changing the engine design requires MCAS? Did this Qantas plane require any modifications to fly this plane such as MCAS or a related system. No! Position of engines can affect handling but can not make plane unsafe to handle with pilots who understand the airplane.



Are you legitimately claiming that there is no way that you can change the position of the engine on an airplane wing that results in an unsafe plane?

What aeronautical engineering training do you have to make this judgement?


----------



## jis

Changing the engine position and getting the new version of the plane certified as a derivative of a previous version that required no additional documentation and allows common type rating without training of pilots requires MCAS. Or so says Boeing and at least I have no reason to question their judgement on this matter. [emoji57]


----------



## adamj023

The same Boeing who never told pilots of the existence of the MCAS system at all. I think Boeings credibility is horrendous.


----------



## jis

adamj023 said:


> The same Boeing who never told pilots of the existence of the MCAS system at all. I think Boeings credibility is horrendous.



And I seriously question your credibility on this matter. What training or credentials do you have in designing and building safety critical systems of any sort?


----------



## ehbowen

adamj023 said:


> https://static4.businessinsider.com...-onto-the-wing-of-a-boeing-747--heres-why.jpg
> 
> Changing the engine design requires MCAS? Did this Qantas plane require any modifications to fly this plane such as MCAS or a related system. No! Position of engines can affect handling but can not make plane unsafe to handle with pilots who understand the airplane.



Um, what you're looking at is a hard point specifically designed and built into the airframe for the purpose of ferrying spare engines to remote maintenance bases. Boeing designed it into the 747 from the beginning as back in 1969 the 747's engines were too large to be shipped as air freight in a cargo hold, or actually by any ground method except railroad flatcar or break-bulk freighter ship. It was part of the original certification design and still is. Try again.


----------



## Dakota 400

It's interesting to read the different posts with different opinions. What to believe from someone who has no engineering background?

What I do believe is that Boeing screwed up in a major way with this plane. By doing so, they have caused major damage to the reputation of this Company in producing commercial airplane models, they have endangered the lives--and indeed--probably have caused the lives of those that flew on the MAX, they have significantly reduced the value of my investment in Boeing, and yet, while one executive has been "sacrificed", the really upper echelon of Management and the Board of Directors continue to draw their salaries. 

Can't rationally explain why I feel this way. But, the move from Seattle to Chicago for the Boeing Headquarters seems, to me, to have been a turning point in the direction of, at least, the commercial side of Boeing.


----------



## TJGagliardo

Responding to Lockheed Martin reentering commercial air craft market; it may not want to. This is from Wikipedia:

*"Lockheed Martin* received $36 billion in *government contracts* in 2008 alone, more than any company in history. It does work for more than two dozen *government* agencies from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency


----------



## adamj023

Government contracts are a lot more lucrative than the commercial aircraft market. 

Southwest Airlines is the most impacted by the 737 Max in the USA.

Delta is one of the large legacy airlines in the USA which has no exposure to the Max issue.

American Airlines and United already have orders for other aircraft and so they could order new replacements as necessary and/or use existing orders as leverage to get another Boeing jet instead.

Whether Boeing decides to nix the 737 Max or issue a fix, Airlines will have this all sorted out by 1st Quarter 2020 as 737 Max will be nixed or start going back into service. 

The aircraft market has only two firms for 737 Max equivalent jets, which is Boeing itself and Airbus that USA will do business. Both Russia and China also compete but they won’t do business with them and while not impossible, almost certain they won’t be used.

Mitsubishi will start entering service for Regional jets starting in 2020 at earliest but there has been nothing larger announced for production by them or others.


----------



## Asher

That particular aircraft will fly, has flown and maybe will continue to fly. But, the company misled buyers into thinking extra special training was not required. Every thing in that manual had been revised with every different model to the point that it was incomprehensible. It flys just like the last model except for it doesn't and when the $:;t hit the fan, well now, big problem. Somebody at Boeing never looked past the end of their nose.


----------



## saxman

adamj023 said:


> That is BS and you know it. The aviation industry started without any computerization or automation. Did any of those airplanes “require” any computer and automation? No, it didn’t exist until much later on. The theory that an MCAS system has to be “required” is totally incredulous. There have been many aircraft hull designs with different engines and weight distributions all built without MCAS systems.
> 
> If we were back into an era where automation and computerization didn’t exist and a plane would never be able to fly without then then it is not airworthy and should never be flown. But with that being said, if you ran the Max without the system. of course pilots could make adjustments as necessary as humans do a better job and can account for variations. Engines have been placed in multiple locations without issues. Twin engine, three engine, four engine with 5th for transport and so on. You can fly a 747 with a 5th engine attached for transport. Military has done things like inflight refueling, and the list goes on of all things that can be done and we are told the Max design requires MCAS which is false.



This, alone, along with your other posts tells me you have zero understanding of automation and the purpose of it. MCAS, stall warnings, stick shakers, auto pilots, etc, are all tools to reduce pilot work load. Pilot's have to constantly tell these automations what to do and how to do it. Sometimes it gets too much of a workload so that function gets turned off to reduce workload, ie, turning off the autopilot to hand fly a visual approach. MCAS is an added tool that was added because of the slightly different characteristics of hand flying the aircraft due to the slightly moved engines from the other 737's. Could the MCAS have been turned off? Sure, but it's hard to turn off something you don't know exists.

The pilots were not trained in MCAS at all, and most weren't even aware it existed much less how it worked. That, and the fact it was only tied to one AOA vane was the fatal flaw. You claimed that no other flights had the same problem just by looking at flightaware? Flightaware data isn't precise, at all, and it doesn't give AOA nor indicated airspeed; two key components. It's just radar data; altitude and ground speed. So there's no way of knowing what happened on the thousands of other flights the MAX took, unless you have access to their flight data recorders. Also, the Lion Air accident airplane had the exact same thing happen on its previous flight. Luckily, the pilots were able to get it down. Unfortunately, it was signed off by maintenance because they couldn't find a problem.

These two crashes were all about MCAS, period. Oh, yeah. I'm a Boeing 767 pilot.


----------



## Bob Dylan

saxman said:


> This, alone, along with your other posts tells me you have zero understanding of automation and the purpose of it. MCAS, stall warnings, stick shakers, auto pilots, etc, are all tools to reduce pilot work load. Pilot's have to constantly tell these automations what to do and how to do it. Sometimes it gets too much of a workload so that function gets turned off to reduce workload, ie, turning off the autopilot to hand fly a visual approach. MCAS is an added tool that was added because of the slightly different characteristics of hand flying the aircraft due to the slightly moved engines from the other 737's. Could the MCAS have been turned off? Sure, but it's hard to turn off something you don't know exists.
> 
> The pilots were not trained in MCAS at all, and most weren't even aware it existed much less how it worked. That, and the fact it was only tied to one AOA vane was the fatal flaw. You claimed that no other flights had the same problem just by looking at flightaware? Flightaware data isn't precise, at all, and it doesn't give AOA nor indicated airspeed; two key components. It's just radar data; altitude and ground speed. So there's no way of knowing what happened on the thousands of other flights the MAX took, unless you have access to their flight data recorders. Also, the Lion Air accident airplane had the exact same thing happen on its previous flight. Luckily, the pilots were able to get it down. Unfortunately, it was signed off by maintenance because they couldn't find a problem.
> 
> These two crashes were all about MCAS, period. Oh, yeah. I'm a Boeing 767 pilot.


Always good to hear from those who know of where they speak instead of Armchair Pilots and Engineers.


----------



## jis

The MAXs have been removed from schedules by all major airlines now through March 2020. My guess is they will be further delayed beyond March, but we'll see. Once they get certified to fly again, it is estimated that it will take upto a year or more to get all of them, the delivered ones and the undelivered ones waiting in the wings, up and flying.

Meanwhile, there was this very interesting article on the matter published in the New Yorker. It also touches on the Tort law issue, something that Amtrak is trying to wriggle itself out of by forcing everything into Arbitration.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/the-case-against-boeing?utm_source=pocket-newtab


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Amtrak is trying to wriggle itself out of by forcing everything into Arbitration.


They seem to have inspired our own Amtrak Unlimited to follow suit. Link: https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/tos/

Watching millions of Americans fighting to have their legal remedies and protections greatly reduced and restricted in order to protect conglomerates from jury awards painful enough to change their behavior was a rather eye opening experience for me. The great American experiment has taught me so much about the inherent frailties of the human mind.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> They seem to have inspired our own Amtrak Unlimited to follow suit. Link: https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/tos/
> 
> Watching millions of Americans fighting to have their legal remedies and protections greatly reduced and restricted in order to protect conglomerates from jury awards painful enough to change their behavior was a rather eye opening experience for me. The great American experiment has taught me so much about the inherent frailties of the human mind.


Indeed!

A minor saving grace is that at least the AU website cannot kill or maim you by mistake, unlike Amtrak, unless one is of a very excitable kind I suppose. 

Incidentally, IIRC, at the Congressional hearing today there was a testy exchange between a Congressman and Mr. Anderson on this matter, in which at one point the Congressman in effect asked Mr. Anderson to STFU while he spoke.


----------



## jis

An explanation how Boeing has come to its current sorry state...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ntic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> An explanation how Boeing has come to its current sorry state...
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/?utm_term=2019-11-20T11:00:04&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social


That's a fascinating viewpoint...thanks for posting that link. Another one of those "tail wagging the dog" stories, where the smaller of the merger partner's ends up in control of the larger. Sometimes that works out favorably, other times...not so much.


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> An explanation how Boeing has come to its current sorry state...
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/?utm_term=2019-11-20T11:00:04&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social



I appreciate reading this article. Thanks for posting it. 

My question is: Where does Boeing go from here? Does Senior Management and the Board of Directors understand what has happened? And, if they do, are they competent to steer a company the size of Boeing to an improved path?


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> An explanation how Boeing has come to its current sorry state...
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/?utm_term=2019-11-20T11:00:04&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social


Wow! Interesting perspective.


----------



## jis

Back when Stonecipher was anointed at Boeing several of us, including several of my friends at Boeing, had half seriously speculated that he would be the undoing of Boeing. Little did we know ...

None of those stayed on at Boeing. They were out within five years. But Boeing did continue to be a huge customer of ours, specially in the area of IT system management for factory floor automation.


----------



## Asher

Interesting breakdown, so now what. When Engineering, Production and Inspection work together things usually go well, when The bean counters in the front office get involved, things sometimes go south. Sort of a typical evaluation I've found to be true.


----------



## jis

And now this opinion from a Transport Canada safety official (not a Transport Canada official position) sent off to the lead safety regulation agencies...

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-...-official-urges-removal-of-mcas-from-737-max/

Specially the statement that issues keep cropping up faster than they can be resolved or the impression to that effect is somewhat alarming, and suggests that things may not be as hunky-dory as is being suggested by Boeing and FAA.

Another informative article...

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/22/bjorns-corner-analysing-the-lion-air-jt610-crash-part-4/



> Isn’t MCAS needed for the safe flight of the 737 MAX? No! This is where most articles about MCAS are lacking. The 737 MAX works without MCAS.
> 
> Nothing in normal flying changes, in fact very little in non-normal flying as well. The pilot can do brusk Go-Arounds where he slams the throttles to full power and we won’t even get close to where MCAS steps in. First, because in a Go-Around he has slats and flaps deployed and as the aircraft cleans up he’s way below 11° AoA.
> 
> I have problems finding any case where a pilot would fly in a way where an inop MCAS would be missed. And if we for some extreme reason sometimes, somewhere, somehow find us in such a flight situation, the probability that MCAS then is inop is virtually nil.



Read the rest of the article. It is interesting and informative.


----------



## west point

IMHO* Boeing made a mistake of making the 737 its max. A better aircraft would have been the 757 which has a taller landing gear and same fuselage. That would have allowed the engines to be placed where they belong under the wings instead of ahead. MAX engines can provide too much up nose torque under certain conditions. New aircraft for many years have gone to be more stable not less that is what the MAX is. IMO there will be more accidents caused by this plane designed by IT folks instead of airmen ! *


----------



## ehbowen

west point said:


> IMHO* Boeing made a mistake of making the 737 its max. A better aircraft would have been the 757 which has a taller landing gear and same fuselage. That would have allowed the engines to be placed where they belong under the wings instead of ahead.*


But, then, Southwest Airlines might actually have to train their pilots to walk and chew gum at the same time (gasp!).


----------



## jiml

west point said:


> IMHO* Boeing made a mistake of making the 737 its max. A better aircraft would have been the 757 which has a taller landing gear and same fuselage. That would have allowed the engines to be placed where they belong under the wings instead of ahead. MAX engines can provide too much up nose torque under certain conditions. New aircraft for many years have gone to be more stable not less that is what the MAX is. IMO there will be more accidents caused by this plane designed by IT folks instead of airmen ! *


A friend of mine in the industry rates the 757 as one of the best - and most underrated - planes ever built.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> IMHO* Boeing made a mistake of making the 737 its max. A better aircraft would have been the 757 which has a taller landing gear and same fuselage. That would have allowed the engines to be placed where they belong under the wings instead of ahead. MAX engines can provide too much up nose torque under certain conditions. New aircraft for many years have gone to be more stable not less that is what the MAX is. IMO there will be more accidents caused by this plane designed by IT folks instead of airmen ! *


It is too heavy to compete effectively with the likes of A321XLR, 50 of which United just ordered to do a 1:1 replacement of its international 757-200 fleet, with about half a dozen additional for growth included.

It is absurd to claim that the MAX was designed by IT folks and exposes a phenomenal level of ignorance, unless that is being stated merely in jest. Designed by aircraft designers with absurd requirements placed on them by MBAs - yes. By IT folks - no.

BTW, here is a very good article on the lay of the land and the challenges that Boeing faces...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richar...nited-airbus-boeing-a321xlr-nma/#14ffb65b39e8


----------



## keelhauled

I have read that in any case Boeing destroyed the tooling used on the 757 production line after the last aircraft was delivered (although I am not sure that the company ever confirmed it), so it's kind of a moot point in general vis a vis the 737 MAX.


----------



## Trogdor

The 757 was overweight and overpowered, and therefore too expensive, to effectively serve that market today. That’s why demand for it fell through the floor as soon as the 737 became capable enough to fill 90-95% of its flights for significantly less money.

It’s not as simple as “just put a new engine on it.” The whole structure is beefy, resulting in a MTOW that would qualify it as a “heavy” for ATC purposes. This requires engines in a thrust class that nobody makes engines for right now, and would be billions in development costs. It couldn’t compete with the A321 or the 737 on economics no matter which way you look at it. In order to take enough weight out of the plane to make it competitive, you’d almost be building an entirely new plane from scratch anyway. That’s something Boeing has been trying to get going for several years, and still has yet to find a way to justify the business case for it given the cost of development and the likely market for the plane for missions that couldn’t be covered by the 737 line (Max groundings notwithstanding).


----------



## jis

Apparently Boeing Chief got a dressing down from FAA Chief the other day...

https://onemileatatime.com/faa-737-...oo2eIws3keXQJEPn_PqAlcpMn2h8Swit3Dmv0bDQ9asPY


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Apparently Boeing Chief got a dressing down from FAA Chief the other day...
> 
> https://onemileatatime.com/faa-737-max-timeline/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=One Mile at a Time&utm_content=FAA Chief Tells Boeing To Back Off 737 MAX Timeline&fbclid=IwAR1j9QR9d_4SNaoo2eIws3keXQJEPn_PqAlcpMn2h8Swit3Dmv0bDQ9asPY



There has been a too cozy relationship between the FAA and Boeing in my opinion. I'm a Boeing shareholder and I have voted and will continue to vote in 2020 for a wholesale change in management and in most--if not all--of the members of the Board of Directors.

I think it will be interesting to see if the European and Canadian aviation authorities agree whenever the FAA decide to certify the MAX again.


----------



## Bluejet

west point said:


> IMHO* Boeing made a mistake of making the 737 its max. A better aircraft would have been the 757 which has a taller landing gear and same fuselage. That would have allowed the engines to be placed where they belong under the wings instead of ahead. MAX engines can provide too much up nose torque under certain conditions. New aircraft for many years have gone to be more stable not less that is what the MAX is. IMO there will be more accidents caused by this plane designed by IT folks instead of airmen ! *



All the tooling for the 757 was destroyed years ago. Building a 757NG would basically require a new ground up effort, and if you do that then just go ahead and fund the NSA.

Also, no engine is currently available in the 757s required thrust rating.


----------



## Bluejet

jis said:


> It is too heavy to compete effectively with the likes of A321XLR, 50 of which United just ordered to do a 1:1 replacement of its international 757-200 fleet, with about half a dozen additional for growth included.
> 
> It is absurd to claim that the MAX was designed by IT folks and exposes a phenomenal level of ignorance, unless that is being stated merely in jest. Designed by aircraft designers with absurd requirements placed on them by MBAs - yes. By IT folks - no.
> 
> BTW, here is a very good article on the lay of the land and the challenges that Boeing faces...
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/richar...nited-airbus-boeing-a321xlr-nma/#14ffb65b39e8




The XLR is going to be revolutionary for trans Atlantic travel. After that I’m guessing Airbus will fund the development of the a321+... I rewinged a321 with laminar flow and extended wingspan with folding wingtips to allow access to current icao group 3 gates.


----------



## jis

Airbus has been playing around with fully CFR wing box and such for the A32x class planes. So it seems quite likely that they will show up soon in some derivative models.


----------



## jis

Boeing to temporarily suspend production of MAXs in January.

https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1206688706347843585

Something is cooking that is possibly more serious than we have been let to believe? Would they suspend production if it was about to be ungrounded?

The following WSJ article requires a subscription if you have run out of your freebies...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-suspend-737-max-production-in-january-11576532032

And here is the article in New York Times with a few more tidbits...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/business/boeing-737-max.html


----------



## railiner

Wow...that is hard news to take. Could this mean that Boeing will scuttle the Max entirely? Hard to fathom, with so much already invested.
If that does happen, it would be a miracle if they could survive as a company, although they are "too important to fail" to the US...


----------



## PRR 60

The FAA informed Boeing not to expect recert before February. They already have about 400 Max's parked and figure they can deliver about 70 per month once they get the OK. That's about 6 months just to clear out the backlog.

According to CNBC, when Boeing issued investor guidance with the expectation of FAA re-certification by the end of the year, the FAA was very displeased. As FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson said to CNBC, "look at the tasks to complete and the calendar, and the math does not add up." The FAA felt that Boeing was applying pressure to short cut the process, and the FAA was not in the mood for that.

My guess is that Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg is in serious trouble - not just for the MAX issue directly (which would be enough), but also the continual issuance of unrealistic assessments of the recovery. Either he knows the issues and chooses to sugar coat it for public consumption or he has created a culture where his reports are not willing to tell him the facts. Either way, it's time to go.

One interesting side issue: despite the shutdown of the MAX line, Boeing will not be furloughing any of the 12,000 affected workers. For the next two weeks it is not an issue since Boeing shuts production over the holidays. Even after that, the workers will remain on the payroll. One thought is that, given the strong economy and record low unemployment, laying off skilled workers would result in losing them.


----------



## jis

United just pushed back their planned MAX induction to schedule date to June 2020.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/20/united-pulls-737-max-from-its-schedule-until-early-june.html


----------



## railiner

Sounds like a great time to be an Airbus salesperson...
Perhaps Embraer should look to 'upsize' their offerings...should be a lot of highly qualified people in the job market soon, to help them achieve that...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Sounds like a great time to be an Airbus salesperson...
> Perhaps Embraer should look to 'upsize' their offerings...should be a lot of highly qualified people in the job market soon, to help them achieve that...


But then Embraer is partly owned by Boeing, the last time I looked. AFAIR happened when Airbus acquired Bombardier's aviation business partly due to Boeing's swaggering stupidity.


----------



## jis

Muilenburg is out at Boeing. He resigned this morning and was replaced by Chairman David Calhoun as CEO. Lawrence W. Kellner to Become Chairman of the Board

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-12-23-Boeing-Announces-Leadership-Changes

The fallout from the MAX fiasco, which incidentally was not of Muilnburg's making since most of the critical decisions were made before his time as CEO, continues...

But unfortunately I will be surprised if Calhoun fixes anything. Wonders do happen, but his background suggests that he will be able to massage the balance sheet to look better, but will most likely fail at re-inculcating an engineering culture at Boeing.


----------



## daybeers

jis said:


> The following WSJ article requires a subscription if you have run out of your freebies...


Private browsing/incognito mode or clearing cookies and data for WSJ or any other website with similar freebies fixes this [emoji4]

Very interesting news about Boeing over the past couple weeks though! Agreed, a very good time to be at Airbus.


----------



## Asher

This is conversation from Boeing.

Now friggin Lion Air might need a sim to fly the MAX, and maybe because of their own stupidity. I’m scrambling trying to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots,” one Boeing employee wrote in June 2017 text messages obtained by the company and released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
In response, a Boeing colleague replied: “WHAT THE F%$&!!!! But their sister airline is already flying it!” That was an apparent reference to Malindo Air, the Malaysian-based carrier that was the first to fly the Max commercially.
Doing simulator training would have undercut a critical selling point of the jet: that airlines would be able to allow crews trained on an older 737 version to fly the Max after just a brief computer course.

I think they have figured out that won't work. Lion Air was one of Boeing largest customers.


----------



## The Journalist

I'm currently reading _Airframe_, a Michael Crichton novel about the investigation into an air emergency resulting from the apparent spontaneous deployment of a poorly-documented feature, noting uncomfortably cozy relationships between the manufacturer and the FAA and highly varying pilot and maintenance standards in Southeast Asia. 

It was written in 1996.


----------



## jis

anumberone said:


> This is conversation from Boeing.
> 
> Now friggin Lion Air might need a sim to fly the MAX, and maybe because of their own stupidity. I’m scrambling trying to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots,” one Boeing employee wrote in June 2017 text messages obtained by the company and released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
> In response, a Boeing colleague replied: “WHAT THE F%$&!!!! But their sister airline is already flying it!” That was an apparent reference to Malindo Air, the Malaysian-based carrier that was the first to fly the Max commercially.
> Doing simulator training would have undercut a critical selling point of the jet: that airlines would be able to allow crews trained on an older 737 version to fly the Max after just a brief computer course.
> i think they have figured out that won't work. Lion Air was one of Boeing largest customers.



All this to keep Southwest happy [emoji52]. Still it was Boeing’s responsibility to put safety ahead of Southwest’s business desires.

It is somewhat damning that when Lionair asked for Simulator Training that was turned down because it did not align with Boeing’s business need, and not because it was unequivocally unnecessary as established by facts that have unfolded since then.


----------



## MARC Rider

anumberone said:


> This is conversation from Boeing.
> 
> Now friggin Lion Air might need a sim to fly the MAX, and maybe because of their own stupidity. I’m scrambling trying to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots,” one Boeing employee wrote in June 2017 text messages obtained by the company and released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
> In response, a Boeing colleague replied: “WHAT THE F%$&!!!! But their sister airline is already flying it!” That was an apparent reference to Malindo Air, the Malaysian-based carrier that was the first to fly the Max commercially.
> Doing simulator training would have undercut a critical selling point of the jet: that airlines would be able to allow crews trained on an older 737 version to fly the Max after just a brief computer course.
> i think they have figured out that won't work. Lion Air was one of Boeing largest customers.



In 2017, I attended a tire industry conference which featured an entertaining talk by a lawyer about the legal concept of "discovery" and its application to electronic devices. Basically, any person needs to realize that anything transmitted in email, text messages, and even phone mail can be retained (and needs to be retained) and can be demanded by lawyers. Thus, when you communicate using these media, you have consider that what you communicate might be posted on the front page of the New York Times (or even Amtrak Unlimited) one day.

The lawyer told a particularly pointed tale of a lawsuit involving deaths due to mechanical failure of a particular car model where discovery found emails among the manufacturer's engineers referring to the product in question as a "rolling sarcophagus." That case didn't go very well for the manufacturer.

Personally, I figured this sort of stuff out around 1995 (for email, at least). I'm sort of surprised that in 2017 the professional staff at Boeing weren't being trained to watch what they say with their devices.


----------



## adamj023

So much misleading info on here and in the real world on the 737 Max jet. There needed to be an airline with an independent review team which evaluated the source code of the computers to identify any specific condition which could have caused the crash. That has not been done to my knowledge and they have never released specific code which induced the crash itself. When the computers of the A320 derivatives had issues with initial production runs, they made modifications quickly and the issues were well documented as to real causes. With the Max Boeing has not been completely honest nor has the FAA or government as well. An airline or multiple airlines or people who have possession of the jets need an independent reviewer to identify the actual problem. My own belief is not relevant because the real cause needs to be proven. Also remember, airlines can also modify the stock airplane as well once they take possession of the jets so it would need to be known as to how these two specific airlines had equipped their own jets with perhaps differing satellite guidance or other equipment inside the plane itself.

I will only fly on top airlines with well trained pilots and with planes that have know to have had solid safety records and ones that have top maintenance crews and solid knowledge of the jets. Fortunately there are numerous ones across the globe. There are airlines and some planes I will not fly on however even today but fortunately to get to any major place in the world, you can find quality airlines to get there.


----------



## jis

adamj023 said:


> So much misleading info on here and in the real world on the 737 Max jet. There needed to be an airline with an independent review team which evaluated the source code of the computers to identify any specific condition which could have caused the crash. That has not been done to my knowledge and they have never released specific code which induced the crash itself. When the computers of the A320 derivatives had issues with initial production runs, they made modifications quickly and the issues were well documented as to real causes. With the Max Boeing has not been completely honest nor has the FAA or government as well. An airline or multiple airlines or people who have possession of the jets need an independent reviewer to identify the actual problem. My own belief is not relevant because the real cause needs to be proven. Also remember, airlines can also modify the stock airplane as well once they take possession of the jets so it would need to be known as to how these two specific airlines had equipped their own jets with perhaps differing satellite guidance or other equipment inside the plane itself.
> 
> I will only fly on top airlines with well trained pilots and with planes that have know to have had solid safety records and ones that have top maintenance crews and solid knowledge of the jets. Fortunately there are numerous ones across the globe. There are airlines and some planes I will not fly on however even today but fortunately to get to any major place in the world, you can find quality airlines to get there.


A bit of a kettle calling the pot black here. The explanation that follows the admonition about "misleading information" itself appears to be full of it based on one pet theory with dubious connections to what is known about the case. [emoji50]

To educate oneself, I'd suggest starting with this thread: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1437865

and then following links to various details. You will soon find that the software was a factor but just one. There were a whole host of other things that went wrong. The problem was the whole design philosophy, and when things went wrong, the effort first being focused on trying to cover up instead of trying to own upto the problem and fix it.

Incidentally, now Boeing is saying that return to service is unlikely to happen before the moddile of 2020 if not later.


----------



## jiml

In a recent email, AA has indicated that they expect them to be flying again by June 4. This is the first mention of an actual timeframe that I've seen from them, and I've seen nothing to confirm it elsewhere. They also allude to an opt-out provision for passengers unwilling to fly them when returned to service, with details to come. "Details regarding policies and procedures for customers who do not wish to fly on the MAX once the aircraft enters scheduled service June 4 will be released in the coming weeks." I guess they know it's going to be a tough sell.

And this is now up as part of a larger Q&A on their website.


----------



## jis

Boeing even apparently doesn’t feel as confident as American. Maybe the effect of slapping around they got from the FAA.


----------



## Bob Dylan

This reminds meof the never ending Soap Opera called "Days of Our Lives".

And also the hysteria that arose after the DC-10 Crash in Chicago that caused so many air travelers to refuse to fly on them, which made upgrades to FC for Frequent Flyers like me so pleasant! 

According to a blurb on Goggle News, Southwest Airlines, the Line with the Largest Fleet of them, is considering offering Discounts once they are back in the air.


----------



## Asher

That DC 10 in Chicago was an ugly sight, I still think about it every time I see a 10, although not often nowadays, a few cargo and a tanker they use for fire retardant drops. I'm hoping we've seen the end of the MAX problems. But, with all the bobbing, weaving and ducking Boeing has done, along with flight crews with varying levels of experience that has me wondering if they are on the same page, especially with a Manuel that has more revision pages than original. I'm not looking forward to boarding one, even with a discount.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The FAA had no logical reason to trust the industry to regulate themselves and they had no business placing a for-profit corporation in charge of safety decisions. The FAA chose to do so of their own volition, and their lazy capitulation makes them complicit _and_ culpable. When it became clear there was a problem with the design the FAA refused to ground the aircraft until every other major authority had already done so. It was only when the aircraft had no remaining path for international deliveries that the FAA finally acted in the most reluctant fashion possible. They're trying to change the narrative now, but the FAA is no hero in this story. They were a willing and necessary participant in this disaster. The FAA will only do the minimum necessary to avoid being replaced with something else. If that means losing hundreds of innocent lives to faster approvals and deeper cost cutting with hand slaps and golden parachutes at the ready then so be it. Nothing that has happened so far is going to prevent this cycle from repeating itself again in the future.


----------



## MARC Rider

Devil's Advocate said:


> The FAA had no logical reason to trust the industry to regulate themselves and they had no business placing a for-profit corporation in charge of safety decisions. The FAA chose to do so of their own volition, and their lazy capitulation makes them complicit _and_ culpable. When it became clear there was a problem with the design the FAA refused to ground the aircraft until every other major authority had already done so. It was only when the aircraft had no remaining path for international deliveries that the FAA finally acted in the most reluctant fashion possible. They're trying to change the narrative now, but the FAA is no hero in this story. They were a willing and necessary participant in this disaster. The FAA will only do the minimum necessary to avoid being replaced with something else. If that means losing hundreds of innocent lives to faster approvals and deeper cost cutting with hand slaps and golden parachutes at the ready then so be it. Nothing that has happened so far is going to prevent this cycle from repeating itself again in the future.



The FAA, as an agency of the government, is just doing what its political masters tell them to do. For the past 40 years, at least, we've been living in a political zeitgeist that says "regulation is bad." This is what the majority of the voters think, or else they don't know what they're doing, voting for political leaders who are willing to place the managers of a for-profit company in charge of safety decisions. Until the political zeitgeist changes, and anti-regulation politicians start losing elections, nothing's really going to change.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> Boeing even apparently doesn’t feel as confident as American. Maybe the effect of slapping around they got from the FAA.


American is not confident either. Doug Parker (AA CEO) was on CNBC yesterday and said they will be removing the MAX from the summer schedule.


----------



## Asher

The 777x is scheduled to make ts first flight today. Another Boeing upgrade, this model has the largest engines ever installed and also wings that fold so it will fit normal sized gates at airports.


----------



## jis

anumberone said:


> The 777x is scheduled to make ts first flight today. Another Boeing upgrade, this model has the largest engines ever installed and also wings that fold so it will fit normal sized gates at airports.



The 6” larger fan diameter 777X GE9X engines are less powerful than the 777-300 ER GE90-115b engines though. A 777X requires less power to take off than the 77W. That is where the extra long extra efficient light weight CF wings with folding wing tips comes in.


----------



## jiml

Those following the Max 8 story may find this an interesting read. The article has a Canadian perspective, but I suspect the basic facts ring true in the US as well. It is in response to accounts of Air Canada flying the Max 8's over 100 times since their supposed grounding, and there is even a railroad tie-in. I am neither endorsing nor disagreeing with the position in the article, but it certainly was thought-provoking.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/disasters-foretold-boeing-737-max-8-and-lac-mégantic/ar-BBZEfdQ?li=AAggNb9&OCID=MF11KM


----------



## NS VIA Fan

Prior to the Max8 groundings...WestJet was building a Transatlantic Max8 'mini-hub' in Halifax with routes to Paris, Glasgow, Dublin and London Gatwick. They've had to drop Paris but will still be able to serve the other shorter TATL routes with a Boeing 737-700.....and they've also just added Manchester, UK.

Air Canada had to withdraw their Halifax > London Heathrow Max8.....and Icelandair cancelled the Max8 Keflavik route.

Condor is not affected as they use a Boeing 767-300 on the Halifax route with Frankfurt 4 times weekly.....and now they've added an additional '767 to Munich.


----------



## jis

Meanwhile I suppose Airbus is making a killing with the 321XLR, which arguably is a more capable plane for thin long routes than any of the 737MAXs anyway.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> Meanwhile I suppose Airbus is making a killing with the 321XLR, which arguably is a more capable plane for thin long routes than any of the 737MAXs anyway.


January new orders: Airbus 274 aircraft, Boeing zero. The only good news for Boeing - no 737MAX cancellations in January, so at least their order book stayed steady at 5393 aircraft. There were about 200 MAX cancellations last year.

United and American have ordered 50 of the Airbus 321XLR's each. Also buying 13 321XLR's is JetBlue, signaling interest in the Transatlantic market.


----------



## jis

Apparently FAA's inappropriately pally relationship with those that it governs and regulates goes beyond Boeing. Enter Southwest, the one that wanted to make sure that the 737MAX does not require any extra pilot training. Apparently they have now been found to have additional skeletons in their closet as reported by the Seattle Times via AP:



> The airline has flown more than 150,000 flights on 88 jets it bought on the used-plane market and which had unconfirmed maintenance histories, the Transportation Department’s inspector general said in a report. That put more than 17 million passengers at risk, according to the report.
> 
> In 2017, FAA inspectors began finding “potentially serious gaps” in Southwest’s process for verifying the condition of the planes, including major repairs that weren’t documented and maintenance records that didn’t meet FAA standards.
> 
> Meeting U.S. standards normally takes up to four weeks per plane, but people hired by Southwest approved 71 of the planes on the same day, the inspector general said.



https://www.seattletimes.com/business/federal-report-faults-southwest-airlines-and-faa-on-safety/


----------



## jis

An interesting piece from a pilot about the MAX affair and pilots ...

https://www.eurocockpit.be/news/taken-granted-pilot-love-affair-gone-sour


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> An interesting piece from a pilot about the MAX affair and pilots ...
> 
> https://www.eurocockpit.be/news/taken-granted-pilot-love-affair-gone-sour


A wonderful perspective...thanks so much for posting it!


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> An interesting piece from a pilot about the MAX affair and pilots ...
> 
> https://www.eurocockpit.be/news/taken-granted-pilot-love-affair-gone-sour



This is an excellently written article that reflects my opinion about how and why Boeing got itself into this mess. I hope the Members of Boeing's Board and the CEO read this.


----------



## jis

One more non-compliance in the MAX and the ongoing argument about what to do about it...

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...-over-737-max-wiring-flaw-that-boeing-missed/

And here is another interesting article about what happened and where things may be headed...

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/202...hnical-reasons-why-boeing-cannot-recover.html


----------



## jis

And the saga continues.

https://onemileatatime.com/boeing-737-max-lion-air-simulator/

So now Boeing agrees that Simulator Training for the MAX is necessary. The reason for this change of position may be...

https://beta.canada.com/pmn/busines...ded/wcm/d8ab4498-30e0-43c4-a18b-2aa70cbd81b2/

more on Boeing's internal communication which strongly suggests that the death of 346 lies entirely on Boeing's shoulders - since afterall they are so clever delivering so called "accurate information" to their customers and shaming them. Actually, I am astonished that they carried out these conversations using a medium that is recorded forever!

Meanwhile, apparently Boeing is yet to submit a final fix that actually works so that the certification process can begin.

Meanwhile, some ominously similar behavior in the space division has come to light in the investigation of why the first unmanned test launch of the Boeing Starliner manned spacecraft failed in achieving its mission. The failures were apparently caused by trivial errors which would have been discovered had Boeing bothered to test the craft's software before sending it up into space. Most astonishingly one comment from Boeing regarding the incorrectly set clock that caused the reignition of the rocket for orbit injection to not take place, was that if there was a crew on board they would have noticed and fixed it!!!! I almost fell off my chair when read that. And if the poor crew failed to do so and blew off into oblivion they would have probably said it was the crew's fault!! Shades of MAX pilot error? Fortunately NASA is tougher on them than the kid gloves FAA.

The result will most likely be that this year only SpaceX will be able to make a manned launch. Boeing will have to wait until they manage to produce a craft that does not fail in trivial ways first.

Incidentally, if you have the time and inclination, read this one about the FAA and weep.

https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Collins Testimony.pdf

Their oversight seems to have made the A320 series a much safer plane than the 737 as they leaned towards following the rules for the A320 while cutting corners for the 737.


----------



## jiml

Boeing, FAA failures to blame for 737 MAX crashes: U.S. House report


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

jiml said:


> Boeing, FAA failures to blame for 737 MAX crashes: U.S. House report



Interesting that the US House report didn't add they, too, have a major responsibility since Congress controls the FAA, its budget, and its available resources.


----------



## MARC Rider

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Interesting that the US House report didn't add they, too, have a major responsibility since Congress controls the FAA, its budget, and its available resources.


First of all, do we really want Congress routinely micromanaging aircraft certification? The point about Congress's role in what is presumably a declining (relative to inflation) FAA appropriation) is probably valid, but this has been a fact of political life since 1980 when the electorate decided that they wanted less government. It's probably up to other major players in public life to point this out and work to change the overall climate regarding spending for regulatory agencies.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> First of all, do we really want Congress routinely micromanaging aircraft certification? The point about Congress's role in what is presumably a declining (relative to inflation) FAA appropriation) is probably valid, but this has been a fact of political life since 1980 when the electorate decided that they wanted less government. It's probably up to other major players in public life to point this out and work to change the overall climate regarding spending for regulatory agencies.


Congress is supposed to make informed decisions about stuff and make it happen (Remember? The greatest deliberative body in the workd and what not? Phrases used when they wish to pat themselves on the back?). They have failed in their duty as far as managing many of the regulatory bodies go, not just the FAA. The FRA is another example of a royal mess. The entire setup where a single body is supposed to regulate the same entities whose businesses they are supposed to help grow has a built in conflict of interest within it. Who set that up?

Of course, specific instruction to the FAA to contract out some critical functions was lunacy of the first order and not giving any push back to it was baffling to start with. Now that the inevitable happened everybody is acting dumbfounded. Now Congress (and the executive branch) are busy trying to figure out how to deflect responsibility onto everyone except themselves, who enabled the development of this mess.

If you study the development of the illegal immigration mess, most of it can also be traced back to irresponsible and incompetent handling of it by the Legislative and Executive Branch in collusion starting with the Reagan Administration. Now of course it is everyone else's fault, not theirs.


----------



## Dakota 400

Where's Harry Truman when we need him? Anymore, "The Buck Never Stops Anywhere."

I place the blame on the leadership of the FAA and Boeing. There is "rot" at the FAA as well as at Boeing that needs to be excised. Is Congress responsible? In part, yes, because part of their job is Oversight of the work of the Federal government. I have opinions as to why this particular function is not being done as well as it might. But, because some might consider my thoughts to be somewhat political and not related to this thread, I won't post them.


----------



## saxman

The FAA just approved the 737MAX to fly again. Or perhaps is it the 737-8 and -9 now?  Not to be confused with the 737-800 and -900.


----------



## Bob Dylan

saxman said:


> The FAA just approved the 737MAX to fly again. Or perhaps is it the 737-8 and -9 now?  Not to be confused with the 737-800 and -900.


Good one Chris!!


----------



## jiml

Bob Dylan said:


> Good one Chris!!


The scary part is - he's right. Although Boeing has not confirmed, this rumored change has been talked about for months. It makes perfect sense. More of the uneducated public are likely to see 737-8 as their choice and say "Well thank heavens it's not one of those MAX planes!".


----------



## jis

saxman said:


> The FAA just approved the 737MAX to fly again. Or perhaps is it the 737-8 and -9 now?  Not to be confused with the 737-800 and -900.


I suppose it is more than likely that they would be referred to as -8, -0 and -10. It would be hard to come up with a 3 alphameric code like 738 for the -800. I guess they could throw in a distinguishing second character, which probably won't be M anymore  - some like 7N8, 7N9 and 7NJ (N for New). Idle speculation. Too much time on hand.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> I suppose it is more than likely that they would be referred to as -8, -0 and -10. It would be hard to come up with a 3 alphameric code like 738 for the -800. I guess they could throw in a distinguishing second character, which probably won't be M anymore  - some like 7N8, 7N9 and 7NJ (N for New). Idle speculation. Too much time on hand.


I'm not sure if all airlines do what AA does, calling the -800 "738" in the schedules, but I wouldn't bet against them lumping them all together under this in the future. It will be like a lottery that has some passengers looking for Airbus models when making reservations. (I still remember the days of "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going.".)


----------



## Bob Dylan

jiml said:


> I'm not sure if all airlines do what AA does, calling the -800 "738" in the schedules, but I wouldn't bet against them lumping them all together under this in the future. It will be like a lottery that has some passengers looking for Airbus models when making reservations. (I still remember the days of "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going.".)


Ditto for the DC-10 after the Chicago Disaster!


----------



## PVD

IATA, ICAO, Airbus " Boeing Codes






airlinerspotter.com




This is where they come from......


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> I'm not sure if all airlines do what AA does, calling the -800 "738" in the schedules, but I wouldn't bet against them lumping them all together under this in the future. It will be like a lottery that has some passengers looking for Airbus models when making reservations. (I still remember the days of "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going.".)


738 is an IATA Code for 737-800. It is nothing specific to AA.

The IATA Codes for Maxes are 7M?, where ? is 7, 8, 9 or J.

The ICAO Code also uses the "M" moniker for the MAX. The ICAO Codes are B3?M, where ? is 7,8,9,or X.

I was merely suggesting tongue in the cheek that maybe they will replace the M by N, but actually I don't think the IATA or ICAO Code will change.

At least United has publicly stated that they will continue to identify all aircraft types in their schedule using the IATA Code. That is what they did with the MAXs before the grounding.

Wikipedia has a relatively complete and upto date list: List of aircraft type designators - Wikipedia


----------



## jis

China not ungrounding, and has no time line for doing so. Considering that a significant proportion of the the MAX market is China, this could prove to be a problem for Boeing.






China not yet prepared to let 737 Max fly again


China's civil aviation authority said on Thursday that it has not yet set a time for the Boeing 737 Max to fly again in China, despite its US counterpart having given the green light to the jet's operation in the United States.




global.chinadaily.com.cn





Questions still persist even after FAA's action.









Questions persist after 737 Max recertification


The grounding of Boeing 737 Max aircraft highlighted doubts about the effectiveness of US Federal Aviation Administration oversight. The FAA's end of the Max flight ban on 18 November leaves families of Max crash victims unsatisfied and Congress trying to pass aircraft certification reform.




www.flightglobal.com





Many US airlines said it will be 2CQ21 before Max's start flying in regular service again. There is modifications to be made in each aircraft and pilots to undergo separate training for flying the MAX, something that Boeing tried to avoid, which caused the creation of this mess in the first place and the loss of 300+ lives.

US Pilots are satisfied with the changes put in place for the MAX. 









US pilot unions satisfied with Boeing 737 Max improvements


US pilot unions say they are satisfied with the improvements to the Boeing 737 Max that led the Federal Aviation Administration to unground the aircraft and open a path for it to return to the airlines' respective operating fleets.




www.flightglobal.com





FAA's Dixon is hoping that Canada, Europe and Brazil will unground the MAX in their respective jurisdictions soon. In the past FAA action used to be pretty much automatically and immediately adopted by other agencies. Apparently no more...









FAA’s Dickson suspects Canada, Brazil and Europe will clear Boeing 737 Max within days


Aviation regulators in Brazil, Europe and Canada could within days follow the Federal Aviation Administration's lead in lifting the Boeing 737 Max's grounding, says FAA chief Steve Dickson.




www.flightglobal.com


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> 738 is an IATA Code for 737-800. It is nothing specific to AA. [...] At least United has publicly stated that they will continue to identify all aircraft types in their schedule using the IATA Code. That is what they did with the MAXs before the grounding.


I think the point was that airlines would use industry jargon that means little or nothing to a typical traveler. Where the codes came from or who used them before the MAX started crashing is kind of irrelevant in that context. I enjoy using codes myself but I would prefer the DOT release a transparency directive to ensure passengers are informed of their choices and can avoid the MAX without penalty or having to decipher industry codes if they are so inclined.



jis said:


> US Pilots are satisfied with the changes put in place for the MAX.


They were satisfied with the original MAX too. I guess they're even more satisfied now.


----------



## tgstubbs1

jis said:


> [URL ]
> 
> FAA's Dixon is hoping that Canada, Europe and Brazil will unground the MAX in their respective jurisdictions soon. In the past FAA action used to be pretty much automatically and immediately adopted by other agencies. Apparently no more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAA’s Dickson suspects Canada, Brazil and Europe will clear Boeing 737 Max within days
> 
> 
> Aviation regulators in Brazil, Europe and Canada could within days follow the Federal Aviation Administration's lead in lifting the Boeing 737 Max's grounding, says FAA chief Steve Dickson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flightglobal.com




I would guess they might be concerned because the FAA failed them the first time. They don't want to look to eager.

Some of the airlines probably want to get the MAX up asap. They have nice interiors and can save $$$ on fuel burn.


----------



## Dakota 400

Devil's Advocate said:


> I would prefer the DOT release a transparency directive to ensure passengers are informed of their choices and can avoid the MAX without penalty or having to decipher industry codes if they are so inclined.



I agree with your statement. Clarity as to exactly what type of plane on which one is flying would also help a prospective passenger in the area of seat selection if a site like Seat Guru is used.


----------



## Asher

All kinds of issues lead to aircraft accidents. Some leave an indelible mark in your brain. These particular incidents ere going to be hard to overcome.


----------



## WWW

Problem is letting a computer fly the airplane - - -
When push comes to shove -
All hell breaks loose -
DISENGAGE THE COMPUTER (Completely) - AND FLY THE DARN AIRPLANE MANUALLY - the ole fashion way !

Trust the computer - nothing can go wrong - nothing can go wrong - nothing - - - ah crap we are flying inverted with an artificial horizon .....

About the 737 family it all started with a very short stubby model 100 and quickly became a 200 - add a couple more rows of seats and
bigger engines the 300 - I don't know if there ever was 400 - there was the 500 600 700 800 900 each subsequent model stretching the
cabin a few more rows of seats and refining the engines for more economy power and boost to handle the weight and load.
As the 707 727 747 757 767 777 air frames have been retired or repurposed to air cargo the 737 is now the replacement competing with the Airbus
family of A3xx. Just Airbus and Boeing - Lockheed Douglas Martin are all history. Oh of course you still have the smaller "Barbie" jets the CRjs
servicing the puddle jump outback airports and the prop DeHavilland critters in the remote areas.

But give me Private Varnish and I am in 7th heaven without leaving the ground !


----------



## PVD

Yes, there was a 400, USAir had them, not sure who else in the US( maybe Alaska?) but almost 400 were built. 500/600 were not stretches, they were in the same size range as the 200 100/200 (orig) 300/400/500 (classic) 600/700/800/900 (next gen) and now max very few 100 built before the 200 took over, very few 600 also


----------



## tgstubbs1

I read Alaska still uses some of the 200s because they can use a gravel strip. 

I remember flying on one around 1966. It was parked next to some other behemoth jet and we just walked right up to the stair way. It was very short, almost 'cute'.


----------



## caravanman

So the problems are sorted, which is great news. Does anyone actually know why it took so long? 

Any idea what has been altered or is it just a new computer programme?


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> Yes, there was a 400, USAir had them, not sure who else in the US( maybe Alaska?) but almost 400 were built. 500/600 were not stretches, they were in the same size range as the 200 100/200 (orig) 300/400/500 (classic) 600/700/800/900 (next gen) and now max very few 100 built before the 200 took over, very few 600 also


A total of 486 734s were delivered.


caravanman said:


> So the problems are sorted, which is great news. Does anyone actually know why it took so long?
> 
> Any idea what has been altered or is it just a new computer programme?


Here is the new Airworthiness Directive (AD) from the FAA. It describes everything that needs to be done before each aircraft and each crew is allowed to fly one of these. It is a PDF document.



https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room/boeing_reading_room/media/737_AD_2019-NM-035fr.pdf



Here is the blurb from FAA that went with the overall release of the modified setup:






FAA Updates on Boeing 737 MAX | Federal Aviation Administration


FAA Statement on Backup Power Control Unit Manufacturing Issue




www.faa.gov





It took time first to figure out exactly what to change to reduce the risks to acceptable levels, and then to incorporate them and test them. Also there was some time involved in doing the Flight Simulator incorporating the actual expected behavior of the plane and make sufficient numbers available so that airlines could train their pilots for the MAX, something that was not required previously, but is required now.

One very major change is that MCAS does not have unlimited authority to override the pilot any more. It is allowed to intervene once and then take itself off line. So no more positive MCAS directed flights into terrain, which happened to be a feature before the fix, if the pilots failed their test to determine the exact cause of the problem and pull the select circuit breakers in a timely manner.

The other major change is that the MCAS now uses input from both attitude detectors and if they don;t agree, raises an alarm instead of blindly believing whatever its gets from a single detector.

So there has been changes in both hardware and software and in training and certification of crew requirements.

Speaking of using automation to enhance stability of aircraft, Yaw Dampers have been used in swept wing aircraft since the early days of the jet age since several of the jet aircraft, specially those with T-tails were unstable and susceptible to go into dutch rolls unless spontaneous yaw motion was countered in a timely manner. The aircraft were flyable without the yaw damper, but it was a dicey exercise even for extremely proficient pilots. But the problem was severe enough on T-tailed aircraft that they required a fail safe Yaw Damper system to operate commercially. So to claim that a pilot can do better than automation in all cases just shows a certain level of lack of knowledge on part of the one claiming so.


----------



## Trogdor

tgstubbs1 said:


> I read Alaska still uses some of the 200s because they can use a gravel strip.



Alaska Airlines hasn’t flown the 737-200 for 13 years. There are a (very small) number of 737-200s flying in northern Canada, but from what I can tell, nothing in the state of Alaska.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Trogdor said:


> Alaska Airlines hasn’t flown the 737-200 for 13 years. There are a (very small) number of 737-200s flying in northern Canada, but from what I can tell, nothing in the state of Alaska.


Maybe those are the ones I meant.


----------



## tgstubbs1

jis said:


> One very major change is that MCAS does not have unlimited authority to override the pilot any more. It is allowed to intervene once and then take itself off line.
> 
> Speaking of using automation to enhance stability of aircraft, Yaw Dampers have been used in swept wing aircraft since the early days of the jet . The aircraft were flyable without the yaw damper, but it was a dicey exercise even for extremely proficient pilots. But the problem was severe enough on T-tailed aircraft that they required a fail safe Yaw Damper system to operate commercially.


I have never understood how they could have approved a system that repeatedly overrode the pilots when the amount of instability caused by the engine remount upgrade was a finite amount, about 10% I think I read. 

Kind of like one of those elevators with doors that won't take a hint and stay open despite someone repeatedly forcing the door open.

And as for flying without automation I bet a number of flight issues could result while flying with a defective attitude indicator. Especially modern jets with the ultra thin and efficient wing shapes.

In my opinion that pilot that flew the MAX into the ocean should have landed immediately because of the failure of that indicator, MCAS or not he could have had problems.


----------



## Brian Battuello

Speaking as a (retired) CFII, instrumentation failures are a fact of life in flying. We train from the very beginning to never trust a single indication. "Observe, Verify, Correct". But sometimes a single point of failure, such as an angle of attack sensor, can cause an amazing series of inexplicable events.

There are a zillion air crash investigations out there, but for an instrumentation induced accident, this is a classic. Well worth the 20 minutes on YouTube.



In retrospect, the pilots would have been fine if they had stayed in visual contact with the lights of Lima, Peru and "just flown the plane" but watching the video, you can see how the cascading series of events overwhelmed the pilots and finally doomed the flight.


----------



## Dakota 400

Brian Battuello said:


> but for an instrumentation induced accident, this is a classic. Well worth the 20 minutes on YouTube.



I watched this video on Friday. It was a frightening series of events. I kept thinking, what were the passengers thinking? What were they being told? It made quite an impression on me.


----------



## PVD

Okay, I took the 500 number (389) instead of the 400 number...389 would be "almost 400" but either way, that is a pretty good number built. I only recall being on a 400 once or twice, on US Air. PIT to LGA on a return trip from a symposium that I used the train to get to, and once between Florida and LGA, and I don't remember which direction...


----------



## Brian Battuello

Corrected attitude indicator to angle of attack sensor. Also, even in 1996 I was surprised by the amount of Spanish in the air traffic control communications. I've never flown in South America, but I've flown in Mexico and Europe, and in both places very clear English is spoken. Good thing, because mi español es muy malo...


----------



## Brian Battuello

And I was surprised that the pilots had such poor basic flying skills. As far as I could tell, the attitude indicator was working perfectly, and there was no reason to believe that the engine instrumentation was faulty. Power plus attitude equals performance. If you have full power and the nose is up 5%, you will accelerate and climb, unless you've done something really stupid with the flaps or speed brakes (see AA Cali). Maybe if you are at really low airspeed and way behind the power curve, but there was no reason to think that was the case.


----------



## WWW

Frightening that Peru ATC would be using the transponder info from the crippled aircraft instead of using their own instruments.

On another note when the plane has arrived at the gate - ???s why it takes so long for the gate agent to position the jetway - - -
It is to avoid hitting those pitot tubes - when boarding a flight you may be able to see them image below:

Pitot tube LINK:
pitot tube - AT&T Yahoo Search Results





Returning this back to the Railroad aspect of this forum - engineers and conductors don't have to worry about altitude but speed that can
be concerning staying on the tracks. Always that Safety thing !


----------



## WWW

Brian Battuello said:


> And I was surprised that the pilots had such poor basic flying skills. As far as I could tell, the attitude indicator was working perfectly, and there was no reason to believe that the engine instrumentation was faulty. Power plus attitude equals performance. If you have full power and the nose is up 5%, you will accelerate and climb, unless you've done something really stupid with the flaps or speed brakes (see AA Cali). Maybe if you are at really low airspeed and way behind the power curve, but there was no reason to think that was the case.



At the end of that YouTube video the explanation for the crash was in cleaning the aircraft surfaces the pitot tubes were masked off with non-standard
tape to prevent cleaning fluid intrusion. The non-standard tape (duct tape) instead of blaze orange was substituted and not noticed in the pre-flight
walk around of the crew Captain or FO. The pilots had plenty of flight hours - Captain 22k the FO 8k I would not guess poor flying skills but perhaps
complacency in getting simulator emergency experience to just simply fly the aircraft when all else has failed -- that and the Peru ATC having a hand in
using the transponder info instead of their own radar/instruments.


----------



## caravanman

There are hundreds of genuine pilot to air traffic control recordings on youtube. It surprised me just how many flights do suffer from "unexpected issues". Fortunately we only get to hear about the most serious outcomes...


----------



## Brian Battuello

WWW said:


> Peru ATC having a hand in
> using the transponder info instead of their own radar/instruments.



To be fair to ATC, the transponder data is the only source of altitude they have. Primary radar only detects location, not elevation. ATC training is very different than IFR pilot training, they are 98% fixated on keeping the dots separated, not flying the plane. In a perfect world, the pilots would have turned off the Mode/C (altitude) feature so that ATC wouldn't have erroneous information. But that was the least of their problems.

Another of the many things the pilots should have realized is that the ground proximity system could probably be trusted, as it doesn't use air data at all, it has a separate radar on the plane that shoots down and back. "Terrain/Pull Up" means exactly that. Full power, nose at 5% and clean wings. 

caravanman is completely correct. To have a really good screwup, many things have to go wrong in a row. Break the chain, and the flight goes back to normal.


----------



## Dakota 400

WWW said:


> The non-standard tape (duct tape) instead of blaze orange was substituted and not noticed in the pre-flight
> walk around of the crew Captain or FO.



As I understood it, this was an intermediate stop for this flight before flying to its destination. It was not clear to me whether the Captain or FO boarded the flight at that stop or not. If they didn't. would there be a pre-flight walk around? It was also well after dark; maybe the darkness might have prevented someone from noticing was amiss during a pre-flight walkaround?


----------



## Brian Battuello

I was wondering why maintenance was working on the pitot static system on a routine stopover. It seems that the 757 they normally flew on this route was taken out of service in Lima some days before. An older 727 was used to fly to Miami and then back to Lima. The 757 had been fixed, and they decided to clean the outside of the plane since they had the time. All the passengers and the flight crew left the 727 in Lima and boarded the 757, which had the pitot static tubes blocked for the cleaning, and never removed. Several of the regular mechanics and the supervisor were not on duty, and the job was done by less experienced people and never properly inspected. While the captain did the walk around, it is not surprising that he didn't notice the tape high on the plane in the blackness at 12:30am. Again, accident chain.


----------



## me_little_me

I think the 737MAX planes should be renamed to 737T(itanic). That will deflect people from worrying about the MAX name!


----------



## caravanman

I _think_ the engines on the 737 Max have a flat lower edge on the outer cowl, to air ground clearance? I don't know if that is 100% correct? Maybe in any case, folk would like to know what aircraft it is before they walk out to board, of course...


----------



## jis

caravanman said:


> I _think_ the engines on the 737 Max have a flat lower edge on the outer cowl, to air ground clearance? I don't know if that is 100% correct? Maybe in any case, folk would like to know what aircraft it is before they walk out to board, of course...


That flatness has existed in all 737s second gen onward AFAIR.

There are some folks, by far not even a good plurality who would like to know after a year of safe operation has passed. 

Looking at the engine cowling won;t be the way to know that. With a little trained eye the winglet would be a better guide. The MAX winglet is different from the Scimitar winglets used in pre-MAX 737s.

Most American carriers of repute will identify them in their schedules, and many will allow change of booking without penalty at least for a while to those that wish to remove themselves from a MAX flown flight. That is not to say that there won't be other airlines that will attempt to obfuscate.


----------



## PVD

The notches at the back of the cowling are a dead giveaway


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> The notches at the back of the cowling are a dead giveaway


Yes. Similar to what one also finds on the 787 and 777-8 and 9.


----------



## B757Guy

Happy Thanksgiving a bit early. Both my airline, and the one my fiancé flies for operate the MAX. In fact, my fiancé has moved to the 737 from the Airbus, due to the impact her airline has had from Covid19. She feels that the changes Boeing has made, along with the training she has received, that the aircraft is a safe as any other in the fleet to fly. Her sentiments have been echoed by a few of my friends at my airline, who also feel that the MAX is perfectly safe.

Safe travels to you all. I actually get to be home this Thanksgiving, but sadly its due to the impact Covid19 has had.  Lets hope this time next year, the world is on the mend from all of this, and we can all safely travel again.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

WWW said:


> Problem is letting a computer fly the airplane - - -When push comes to shove - All hell breaks loose -
> DISENGAGE THE COMPUTER (Completely) - AND FLY THE DARN AIRPLANE MANUALLY - the ole fashion way !


The problem is not that computers are inherently unsafe; it's that both the computer and the pilot need to agree on who is in control and can override the other. These days a commercial pilot flying manually is still instructing a computer on what he wants the plane to do. There is no practical method for one or two humans to operate a modern commercial aircraft without substantial computer assistance.



caravanman said:


> So the problems are sorted, which is great news. Does anyone actually know why it took so long?


This particular aircraft may be sorted but relatively little has been done to fix the presumption of safety and the suppression of dissent that allowed a serious design flaw to be approved and deployed in the first place.



caravanman said:


> There are hundreds of genuine pilot to air traffic control recordings on youtube. It surprised me just how many flights do suffer from "unexpected issues".


In general commercial flying remains incredibly safe and hundreds of anomalous recordings are a rounding error compared to the total number of uneventful flights. I flew UA for many years and never heard anything remotely dangerous on CH9. Now that dash cams are becoming more common laymen are able to see what statisticians have known for decades.


----------



## Dakota 400

Brian Battuello said:


> I was wondering why maintenance was working on the pitot static system on a routine stopover.



I appreciate your response to my post. Thank you. As you said, one event leading to another in an accident chain that results in a tragedy.


----------



## caravanman

All flights have an element of risk... After such tragic events, and subsequent alterations, I guess the 737 Max will probably be as safe as other aircraft _now..._


----------



## WWW

Dakota 400 said:


> I appreciate your response to my post. Thank you. As you said, one event leading to another in an accident chain that results in a tragedy.



A routine stop-over would not defer the cleaning degreasing whatever of the fuselage - it is a simple power flush of the exterior surfaces
to reduce the greasy drag potential and the removing of those unsightly blue degerm streaks from the restroom overflows etc.
Those pitot tubes however do not like to be fouled rendering them useless therefore they are capped with a bottle cap type device of 
significant color that is to be removed before flight. What was used here was ordinary duct tape to accomplish the capping plugging of
the tubes. The duct tape has the same silver color as the fuselage and pitot tubes and was not noticed in the pilot walk around before flight.

Yes a combination of events leading to bad decisions actions leading to the total loss of the airplane and MORE IMPORTANTLY LIVES !


----------



## leemell

caravanman said:


> I _think_ the engines on the 737 Max have a flat lower edge on the outer cowl, to air ground clearance? I don't know if that is 100% correct? Maybe in any case, folk would like to know what aircraft it is before they walk out to board, of course...



737s have always had the flattened cowl since the very first models.


----------



## Maglev

leemell said:


> 737s have always had the flattened cowl since the very first models.



The very first models had small Pratt & Whitney JT8D-7 turbofans, which very definitely were not flattened and had plenty of ground clearance. And man could those engines scream!


----------



## jis

leemell said:


> 737s have always had the flattened cowl since the very first models.


I don't believe the -100s had flattened nacelles.









An In-depth Look at Boeing’s Very First 737 | Airways Magazine


The first flight of the Boeing 737 took place 50 years ago on April 9, 1967, and Airways marks the anniversary taking a look at the first 737 ever built.




airwaysmag.com


----------



## PVD

The flattened cowl originated with the changeover to the CFM-56, on the 300. 100/200 were P&W JT8D The shape came about because of the need to relocate certain equipment from the bottom to the sides, and to try and gain some clearance to avoid FOD even with the larger dismeter.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Looks like the Europeans are ready to approve the Max. Ryanair wants to order more of them.


----------



## jiml

tgstubbs1 said:


> Looks like the Europeans are ready to approve the Max. Ryanair wants to order more of them.


With 200 seats!


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> With 200 seats!


MAX10 spec says it is for 188 seats in two class configuration and 230 seats in a single class configuration. I would be surprised if Ryanair puts in just 200 seats on a MAX 10 if that is what they get. Max 9 is 220, MAX 8 210 and MAX 7 172.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> MAX10 is certified for 188 seats in two class configuration and 230 seats in a single class configuration. I would be surprised if Ryanair puts in just 200 seats on a MAX 10 if that is what they get. Max 9 is 220, MAX 8 210 and MAX 7 172.


----------



## jis

I don't see what is so crazy about 200 seats in a plane that is designed for more than 200 seats. Tightly packed seats? Of course. But they are no more tightly packed than in any other Ryanair plane. It *is* Ryanair afterall. As I said, I am a bit surprised that it is only 200 seats


----------



## Night Ranger

"It *is* Ryanair afterall." Truer words were never exchanged on the internet.

I understand maxing out capacity on an aircraft but Ryanair would sell places on the wings if they could design strong enough straps to hold the passengers in place. A couple of years ago they attempted to charge admission to use the plane's restroom.


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> MAX10 is certified for 188 seats in two class configuration and 230 seats in a single class configuration. I would be surprised if Ryanair puts in just 200 seats on a MAX 10 if that is what they get. Max 9 is 220, MAX 8 210 and MAX 7 172.



To be technical, the MAX10 isn’t certified for anything because it hasn’t been built or tested yet.

The Ryanair order is for the MAX8-200, which is a 737-8 fuselage with an extra set of exit doors increasing the capacity (the standard -8 is exit-limited to 189 passengers). Supposedly they are going to fit 197 seats on that plane. I’m not sure what the European regulation is, but in the US, once you hit (either 200 or 201, I forget the exact rule) you’d need a 5th flight attendant. Ryanair is undoubtedly choosing that capacity to avoid the need for an extra FA.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jiml said:


> With 200 seats!


Friends dont let Friends Fly on Ryanair!!!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Bob Dylan said:


> Friends dont let Friends Fly on Ryanair!!!


Several of the more outlandish claims people make about Ryanair turn out to be publicity stunt antics that are impractical or impossible to actually implement, but I've often wondered what compels people with more than a bus ticket to their name to choose Ryanair, Spirit, or Allegiant despite the negative publicity. I can carry everything I need in a single roll-a-board but imagine trying to fit a whole trip into a purse, briefcase, or laptop bag because anything else comes with fees that could double or triple the cost of the trip. If you're short enough to survive child-sized pitch and everything goes smoothly then I guess you "win" the value challenge but the moment anything goes wrong you'll be twice as SOL and either postponing your trip or paying last minute workaround prices out of your own pocket.


----------



## WWW

Yeah Ryanair -

Take out the rest rooms and galley to achieve maximum utilization of seating in the cabin -
Adjust the seat pitch so the knees are impacted into the back of the passenger seat in front -
A premium charge for carry on luggage -
Seat belts not required - the passenger is sandwiched sardine fashion into the can ( ah er cabin) -
Creature comforts will be on the cheap side -
In the unlikely event that oxygen masks are deployed there will be an additional incidental service charge.
For comments about the flight and customer service there is a circular file next to the waste container in the gate lobby.


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> To be technical, the MAX10 isn’t certified for anything because it *hasn’t been built* or tested yet.


To be pedantic... 





Photo from Boeing's blurb....

It had its Taxi Test on Mar 3, 2020. AFAIK not flight tested yet. Was awaiting ungrounding of the MAX line.

Not certified, (corrected in the original) but is designed and speced for 230 in high density single class configuration. That is the number they are using for selling it. The two class configuration claims to be typically 188- 204 (16J+188Y). MAX9 is being peddled for 220 or 193 two class.


> The Ryanair order is for the MAX8-200, which is a 737-8 fuselage with an extra set of exit doors increasing the capacity (the standard -8 is exit-limited to 189 passengers).


Ryanair putting only 190-ish seats in a plane that can hold 200+ is what surprises me. Boeing lists its specification as Max seating 210, with typical 2 class 162-178.


----------



## railiner

Perhaps Boeing should design aircraft with multiples of 50 seats to maximize the FAA flight attendant requirements?
The same number serving 230 (5), could serve 250...
Of course, airlines could still order these and choose not to pack them in as tight...


----------



## PVD

Airlines determine seating configurations, numbers of restrooms, and galley options. All of those influence seat counts.. Numbers, location and size of exits factor into maximum passengers, which go into the how many people can be safely evacuated in a given period of time (90 sec?)


----------



## Dakota 400

PVD said:


> Airlines determine seating configurations, numbers of restrooms, and galley options.



I wonder if the airlines determine the size of the restrooms. Is it my imagination or is it reality? As the planes have become larger, the restrooms have become smaller.


----------



## PVD

The final choice is the airline, there have been smaller restrooms that are much more common nowadays, fit extra seats is the goal...


----------



## railiner

PVD said:


> The final choice is the airline, there have been smaller restrooms that are much more common nowadays, fit extra seats is the goal...


Some of those new restrooms I can't stand up in...and I'm only 5'11". Even bus restrooms are roomier...


----------



## bms

WWW said:


> Yeah Ryanair -
> 
> Take out the rest rooms and galley to achieve maximum utilization of seating in the cabin -
> Adjust the seat pitch so the knees are impacted into the back of the passenger seat in front -
> A premium charge for carry on luggage -
> Seat belts not required - the passenger is sandwiched sardine fashion into the can ( ah er cabin) -
> Creature comforts will be on the cheap side -
> In the unlikely event that oxygen masks are deployed there will be an additional incidental service charge.
> For comments about the flight and customer service there is a circular file next to the waste container in the gate lobby.



In 1998 I asked for orange juice on Ryanair and was told that orange juice would cost 50p. I declined and took nothing. I out-cheaped Ryanair!


----------



## WWW

PVD said:


> Airlines determine seating configurations, numbers of restrooms, and galley options. All of those influence seat counts.. Numbers, location and size of exits factor into maximum passengers, which go into the how many people can be safely evacuated in a given period of time (90 sec?)


I believe the requirements are 1 Flight Attendant for every 50 passengers starting with one - at 51 seats 2 - at 101 3 with another stipulation of
for every Main Cabin Door with emergency slide 1 attendant for each door - the over wing exits are taken care of by volunteer passengers ***
*** remember hearing the announcement of those passengers seated in the emergency rows to read the emergency card on the operation of
the exit door and if not willing then they will be reseated somewhere else.


----------



## jis

Yeah. Since the window seat by the main cabin door of a 757 (on UA/CO international 757s) is my favorite seat, I have the main cabin door (2nd door from the front on the left) opening procedure etched in my brain.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Yeah. Since the window seat by the main cabin door of a 757 (on UA/CO international 757s) is my favorite seat, I have the main cabin door (2nd door from the front on the left) opening procedure etched in my brain.


I always found it interesting that UA (and CO previously) like using that door. On dozens of flights on AA 757's over the years, I've experienced them using that door exactly once - and it wasn't even internationally. Even their 767's were hit or miss. BA always used the second door. I'll miss 757's (and 767's) though - great airplanes.


----------



## Trogdor

jiml said:


> I always found it interesting that UA (and CO previously) like using that door. On dozens of flights on AA 757's over the years, I've experienced them using that door exactly once - and it wasn't even internationally. Even their 767's were hit or miss. BA always used the second door. I'll miss 757's (and 767's) though - great airplanes.



There’s a bit of a benefit to using that door. Besides the “exclusivity” of first class passengers not having economy passengers walk by, there’s there are practical considerations such as it being easier for flight attendants to provide pre-departure service to them without needing to interrupt the boarding flow, as well as the fact that certain commissary items can still be loaded and stored in the area in front of door 2 while boarding is going on (again, with little-to-no interruption to the boarding process). This helps speed up turns.


----------



## railiner

Any airliner with 20 seats or more requires a flight attendant (the reason for several 19 seaters...the FO does the safety briefing, and the cockpit is not closed except for a curtain). 51 seats requires a second flight attendant. Even the now gone NY Airways Boeing Vertol 107 helicopters required an FA.


Trogdor said:


> There’s a bit of a benefit to using that door. Besides the “exclusivity” of first class passengers not having economy passengers walk by, there’s there are practical considerations such as it being easier for flight attendants to provide pre-departure service to them without needing to interrupt the boarding flow, as well as the fact that certain commissary items can still be loaded and stored in the area in front of door 2 while boarding is going on (again, with little-to-no interruption to the boarding process). This helps speed up turns.


Agreed! They should design all airliners that way, but it might make it more difficult to reconfigure the seating at different times....if they wanted to expand the first class section, particularly....


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> I always found it interesting that UA (and CO previously) like using that door. On dozens of flights on AA 757's over the years, I've experienced them using that door exactly once - and it wasn't even internationally. Even their 767's were hit or miss. BA always used the second door. I'll miss 757's (and 767's) though - great airplanes.


I rode AA 757's a few times to Colorado ski destination's, and they usually used the second door...


----------



## PVD

It may also be a function of the gates/jetways and what planes are most commonly at them


----------



## WWW

PVD said:


> It may also be a function of the gates/jetways and what planes are most commonly at them


You have that pegged right on.
With the smaller planes the fuselage is too short and the engines almost at the front of the plane
(The phasing out of the rear tail engine aircraft is making this more and more a problem)
The planes with an extended tube are best for this using DOOR 2 Left - boarding in the space
somewhat forward of the mid-section the coach passengers go right and the First/Business go
left. Some airlines have the galley in that mid-section although the galleys have been reduced
in size as full meals are fastly becoming something of the past - its snacks and beverages.
At the airports those jetways need an extraordinary reach to go over and around the engines
and wings - some a half of a foot ball field in length.
It was common for the large wide-body aircraft to use two jetways in boarding.
That Airbus 380 double decker no doubt used three to facilitate faster timely boarding.
Think of an airplane carrying 10 Amtrak coach car passengers for reference.


----------



## caravanman

It seems silly to knock Ryanair or other budget airlines for their "bare bones" service.
Folk have a choice of flights between most places, so if a person wants a cheap flight, why not?
It is up to the airlines to decide how spartan or luxurious the options are to maximise their income in the sector they are aiming for.
I love to fly on the A380 of course, but I am also happy with my cheap short hop flights to mainland Europe.
The main thing that I hold against the cheap operators is their often very early morning flight times.


----------



## MARC Rider

caravanman said:


> It seems silly to knock Ryanair or other budget airlines for their "bare bones" service.
> Folk have a choice of flights between most places, so if a person wants a cheap flight, why not?
> It is up to the airlines to decide how spartan or luxurious the options are to maximise their income in the sector they are aiming for.
> I love to fly on the A380 of course, but I am also happy with my cheap short hop flights to mainland Europe.
> The main thing that I hold against the cheap operators is their often very early morning flight times.



That might sound OK in theory, but there are a few things that should be universal:

1) Luggage. Most flights are for long distances and a significant percentage, if not most passengers are not commuters on the MARC train carrying only a briefcase or daypack. All the people trying to jam rather large pieces of carry-on luggage in the overhead racks is a nuisance and probably a safety hazard. And once you add the baggage checking fees, the "low fare" isn't o low.
2) Seat size. This could be a potential safety hazard with regards to rapid evacuation of the lane in an emergency. I have heard that the the current cramped seat configurations have supposedly be tested or modeled for this and have been approved by regulators, but, frankly, I would be skeptical of models or test results prepared by companies that have a financial interest in the results, and we all know how regulatory agencies can get "captured" by the businesses they regulate.
3) Given the climate crisis and the fact that airliners have a very high intensity of greenhouse gas emissions in sensitive parts of the atmosphere, I don't think it's good public policy to encourage the growth of airline passenger miles through cheap fares.


----------



## caravanman

Well, we all have our opinions of course, but I don't feel happy with the idea that air travel should return to be the preserve of the wealthy, as per your point 3 above. 
I don't see why things should be "universal" either? Is it not better for everyone to have a range of options to suit themselves, rather than just one standard, as we have with Economy, Business, First Class on the planes?
I can well see me boarding a budget Norwegian flight to America (if they still exist?) clutching my 7kg carry on, and just buying a few shirts and trousers when I get there, if it saves $$$ !


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> Given the climate crisis and the fact that airliners have a very high intensity of greenhouse gas emissions in sensitive parts of the atmosphere, I don't think it's good public policy to encourage the growth of airline passenger miles through cheap fares.


But if a plane is going to fly from A to B it will generate roughly the same amount of pollutants ireespective of whether it carries 200 Business Class passengers or 450 tight packed cheap economy passengers. The pollutant generated per passenger mile would be considerably smaller with the greater number of cheap passengers. This would suggest that maybe it is upper class that should be banned to encourage more efficient use of a limited resource.

Most of the extremely good sounding pollution and energy efficiency numbers for trains are usually based on crammed capacity and not stretched out thin first class capacity too, Maybe it is cheap crammed capacity that should become the norm so that the projected efficiency numbers line up better with reality.

BTW, a very interesting tidboit that was mentioned by United management in one of their all hands staff meeting last week is that most of the flying that is being done now is leisure flying. Business flying is close to non-existent, and most of even the upper class flying is leisure flying. Only 10% of the frequent flier program members are flying! Amazing realities!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

caravanman said:


> It seems silly to knock Ryanair or other budget airlines for their "bare bones" service. Folk have a choice of flights between most places, so if a person wants a cheap flight, why not? It is up to the airlines to decide how spartan or luxurious the options are to maximise their income in the sector they are aiming for.


Does "bare bones" service include flying with less recovery fuel resulting in more emergency landings, playing games with destination names, employing executives who mock and deride your own customers, and leaving people high and dry whenever legally permissible? I've flown Southwest for decades so I can live without luxury but Ryanair is different.



caravanman said:


> I don't feel happy with the idea that air travel should return to be the preserve of the wealthy, as per your point 3 above. I don't see why things should be "universal" either? Is it not better for everyone to have a range of options to suit themselves, rather than just one standard, as we have with Economy, Business, First Class on the planes?


The problem with airlines like Ryanair is that every time they push the envelope of acceptable corporate behavior it eventually spreads across the industry impacting everyone else. Instead of creating more service levels with more options for different customers at this point nearly everyone is paying stupid fees for basic services.



jis said:


> (1) But if a plane is going to fly from A to B it will generate roughly the same amount of pollutants ireespective of whether it carries 200 Business Class passengers or 450 tight packed cheap economy passengers. The pollutant generated per passenger mile would be considerably smaller with the greater number of cheap passengers. This would suggest that maybe it is upper class that should be banned to encourage more efficient use of a limited resource. (2) Most of the extremely good sounding pollution and energy efficiency numbers for trains are usually based on crammed capacity and not stretched out thin first class capacity too, Maybe it is cheap crammed capacity that should become the norm so that the projected efficiency numbers line up better with reality.


(1) My knees simply cannot fit in today's child-sized coach pitch but I also don't need an obnoxious motorized seat contraption that weighs a ton up in business class. There was a vast middle ground that could have done wonders if we had taken action and made progress back when it still mattered.

(2) I've yet to see a source that puts passenger aircraft anywhere near the pollution levels of passenger trains. The pilot that kept making that claim on our forum was using cherry-picked apples and oranges examples to make his flimsy napkin math case. Even if you ignore the fallacies in his argument what makes passenger trains far less polluting than aircraft is not only their efficiency but the fact that they can be powered by renewable energy, which is thus far impossible to do with passenger aircraft. If we had reliable daily passenger trains I'd be happy to ride them over land and only take a flight when traveling over water.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> (1) My long legs simply cannot fit in today's child-sized coach pitch but I also don't need an obnoxious motorized seat contraption that weighs a ton up in business class. There was a vast middle ground that could have done wonders if we had taken action and made progress sooner.


I did not say it would be pleasant. I was just making an extreme counter-point. I agree with the existence of the vast middle ground and I believe it should be served.


> (2) I've yet to see a source that puts passenger aircraft anywhere near the pollution levels of passenger trains. Even the pilot that kept making that claim on our forum was using cherry-picked apples and oranges examples to make his flimsy napkin math case. Even if you ignore the fallacies in his argument what makes passenger trains far less polluting than aircraft is not only their efficiency but the fact that they can be powered by renewable energy, which is thus far impossible to do with passenger aircraft. If we had reliable daily passenger trains I'd be happy to ride them over land and only take a flight when traveling over water. The bright side is that we've done so little to address pollution is that we still have so much we can do to make things better. The down side is that doing anything at all is still too much for many to stomach. At this point we've already lit a thawing permafrost fuse that will set off a feedback loop that makes this whole debate completely irrelevant.


I was merely illustrating that a similar argument as made by the OP would hold even for trains in today's actual praactice, and not that trains in any form are as inefficient as planes. So again I agree with you. And of course eventually when we get to energy efficiency nirvana using only renewables for univerally electrified railway, which BTW, India will probbaly get to a century before the US does, then the point about trains having an equivalent argument becomes entirely moot.


----------



## caravanman

Again, at the end of the day, the fact that passengers are happy to fly Ryanair, and to arrive at secondary airports for a cheaper flight, is down to choice. Those passengers vote by placing their backsides in seats, and opening their wallets.
Yes, it is annoying to have to pay extra for luggage, to choose a seat, to buy a meal, but these are offset by having a lower "base price" for those that don't need them.
I am not a fan of Ryanair, they seem a very unpleasant and tricky bunch, as per that "cheap flights" video, but as a person on a budget, I like that despite their faults, I can travel at a price that is acceptable to me.

Just as a matter of interest, I looked up Ryanair flights from my local airport near Nottingham, UK, to Faro in Portugal. In January 2021, I could get that 3 hour basic flight for US$ 27... I would be paying more for a cab to the airport than for the flight!


----------



## PVD

Quite a few years ago, the best player on my hockey team was in grad school at Syracuse U. People Express $19 dollars Syracuse to Newark. $2 a man, and we flew him in for the weekend (we played one on Sat and one on Sunday) One of our LVP (least valuable players) would keep his equipment in his trunk, and do the airport runs...We got one of the best players in the league for our games, and he got to see his parents and girlfriend almost every weekend...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

caravanman said:


> Again, at the end of the day, the fact that passengers are happy to fly Ryanair, and to arrive at secondary airports for a cheaper flight, is down to choice. Those passengers vote by placing their backsides in seats, and opening their wallets. Yes, it is annoying to have to pay extra for luggage, to choose a seat, to buy a meal, but these are offset by having a lower "base price" for those that don't need them. I am not a fan of Ryanair, they seem a very unpleasant and tricky bunch, as per that "cheap flights" video, but as a person on a budget, I like that despite their faults, I can travel at a price that is acceptable to me.


Are most Ryanair passengers actually choosing one airline over another, or would they be staying home or traveling on a bus otherwise? Here in the US we are more spread out, we live under the rules of binding arbitration, and do not enjoy the same passenger protection laws as Europeans -- so when a Ryanair acolyte such as Spirit or Allegiant leaves us high and dry in exchange for a useless "base price" refund we're genuinely burned. People on a budget are even more screwed since they're at the mercy of an airline model that is built from the ground up to avoid accepting responsibility. When I'm planning a trip I try to take into account the potential for disruptive events and recovery options as well, which I don't think most ULCC passengers bother to consider until it's too late.


----------



## Dakota 400

railiner said:


> Any airliner with 20 seats or more requires a flight attendant (the reason for several 19 seaters...the FO does the safety briefing, and the cockpit is not closed except for a curtain).



I first discovered this when I was a passenger on an Air Canada turboprop from Dayton to Toronto. I was very surprised to learn that there was no flight attendant and, as you said the FO does the safety briefing and the cockpit was visible from where I was sitting. There was a curtain, but the crew did not close it. This was a plane that the the restroom in the tail of the plane with a sliding door that kept sliding open. I don't think there was any heat available. Even though it was a July day and I don't think we reached 10,000 feet, it was cold!


----------



## caravanman

Devil's Advocate said:


> Are most Ryanair passengers actually choosing one airline over another, or would they be staying home or traveling on a bus otherwise? Here in the US we are more spread out, we live under the rules of binding arbitration, and do not enjoy the same passenger protection laws as Europeans -- so when a Ryanair acolyte such as Spirit or Allegiant leaves us high and dry in exchange for a useless "base price" refund we're genuinely burned. People on a budget are even more screwed since they're at the mercy of an airline model that is built from the ground up to avoid accepting responsibility. When I'm planning a trip I try to take into account the potential for disruptive events and recovery options as well, which I don't think most ULCC passengers bother to consider until it's too late.



I can't speak for all other passengers, but historically, mostly folk don't fly from one airport to another within England. People mostly take a train or a coach for such inter city trips. Flying from England to Scotland, or overseas to Ireland is more common. Most budget airline flights are taken to holiday destinations abroad, or visiting family overseas, but I guess there is a good amount of business related travel too.
I have probably been lucky, in that I have never been let down with a cancelled flight, but I believe folk are entitled to compensation of some sort.
I weigh up all the options when booking a flight, such as fare, departure airport, time, overall convenience and the cost of any extras. It's not all about the cost, but it is a major factor when one can save 75% by picking a no frills airline.
I certainly take into consideration being left high and dry when planning my Amtrak train rides...


----------



## jebr

caravanman said:


> I certainly take into consideration being left high and dry when planning my Amtrak train rides...



Yeah - if nothing else, Amtrak travel has prepared me to handle delayed travel fairly well (or at least know what to do to make it work out.) So far in my roughly 20-30 round trips on ULCCs (mainly Spirit and Frontier) I've had pretty good luck - no cancellations so far, and most delays have been an hour or less. I'd consider that on-time for my Amtrak travels!

I've also been able to be strategic about getting everything into a backpack - usually it's a day trip or a single overnight, so only a change of clothes is required (for the day trips, just in case my flight gets cancelled.) I did do a 4-night trip earlier this year with just a backpack - a couple changes of clothes and a load of laundry halfway through at the hotel made it quite workable; I found some detergent sheets online so I didn't have to worry about the 3 oz rule for liquids. If I have a longer trip than that, but am traveling with someone else, we still have the option to check one bag total for the two of us, which would likely still keep the cost quite a bit cheaper than on a full-service airline or a more traditional low-cost airline.

I wouldn't use them for an important business trip - if something does go wrong, it can spiral out of control fast. I do also use a credit card with some sort of trip cancellation/interruption protection so if I need to make my own changes, I have some sort of backup to hopefully help with the costs. That said, I've found that even the legacy airlines are hesitant to rebook you on another airline when things go awry, so you're still often stuck with whatever's available within their network. The ULCCs certainly have their niche, and I think they do a decent job serving that niche.


----------



## Bob Dylan

caravanman said:


> Again, at the end of the day, the fact that passengers are happy to fly Ryanair, and to arrive at secondary airports for a cheaper flight, is down to choice. Those passengers vote by placing their backsides in seats, and opening their wallets.
> Yes, it is annoying to have to pay extra for luggage, to choose a seat, to buy a meal, but these are offset by having a lower "base price" for those that don't need them.
> I am not a fan of Ryanair, they seem a very unpleasant and tricky bunch, as per that "cheap flights" video, but as a person on a budget, I like that despite their faults, I can travel at a price that is acceptable to me.
> 
> Just as a matter of interest, I looked up Ryanair flights from my local airport near Nottingham, UK, to Faro in Portugal. In January 2021, I could get that 3 hour basic flight for US$ 27... I would be paying more for a cab to the airport than for the flight!


That's a heck of a Deal Eddie! Too bad the Pandemic makes it too Risky eh!!!


----------



## caravanman

Yes Jim,

I am staying home until I get my vaccine shot. I haven't even been on a bus since March! 

Hope all is well with you and yours?


----------



## Ziv

RyanAir has democratized the use of air travel, especially in Europe, for good and ill.
UK lager louts found it cheaper to fly to Tallinn Estonia for the weekend, pay for a room and booze, than it was to stay home and drink heavily. And Tallinn locals hate them with a passion for their drunken revelry and the destruction it wrought.
I arrived in Tallinn, took a walk through the Old Town area and was kind of saddened by the hostile reactions I got. My hotel front desk clerk asked me how my walk went and I told her I loved the architecture but was kind of disappointed by the hostile response of the locals. She looked at me and laughed, which only made it worse. She apologized and said, "They think you are a Brit!" She explained what was going on and told me to tell them I was American. I have never been mistaken for anything but a "Yank" before, but who knows. The funny thing is that she brought me a beat up baseball cap the next day and it was like night and day. Not only did a baseball cap somehow prove my nation of origin, but it improved my reception by the locals by a noticeable degree.
All because Ryan Air had dirt cheap flights from the UK to Tallinn.
I have never flown on any of the budget airlines because I am pretty tall. After taking Air India flights from London to BKK and suffering from the short seat pitch, I will never subject myself to that again.
On edit: I added a couple photos to show both how beautiful Tallinn is, and how sleepy it was. Note the cat sleeping by the shop...



caravanman said:


> Again, at the end of the day, the fact that passengers are happy to fly Ryanair, and to arrive at secondary airports for a cheaper flight, is down to choice. Those passengers vote by placing their backsides in seats, and opening their wallets.
> Yes, it is annoying to have to pay extra for luggage, to choose a seat, to buy a meal, but these are offset by having a lower "base price" for those that don't need them.
> I am not a fan of Ryanair, they seem a very unpleasant and tricky bunch, as per that "cheap flights" video, but as a person on a budget, I like that despite their faults, I can travel at a price that is acceptable to me.
> 
> Just as a matter of interest, I looked up Ryanair flights from my local airport near Nottingham, UK, to Faro in Portugal. In January 2021, I could get that 3 hour basic flight for US$ 27... I would be paying more for a cab to the airport than for the flight!


----------



## Bob Dylan

caravanman said:


> Yes Jim,
> 
> I am staying home until I get my vaccine shot. I haven't even been on a bus since March!
> 
> Hope all is well with you and yours?


Glad you're doing OK, loved the Mick Fleetwood Picture!

Were fortunate that all my kinfolks and friends are OK so far. 

Like most, hanging in there waiting on the Vaccine and a somewhat return to Normalcy as soon as possible!

I'm ready for a trip to anywhere, would even consider Flying on Ryan Air!


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> I arrived in Tallinn, took a walk through the Old Town area and was kind of saddened by the hostile reactions I got. My hotel front desk clerk asked me how my walk went and I told her I loved the architecture but was kind of disappointed by the hostile response of the locals. She looked at me and laughed, which only made it worse. She apologized and said, "They think you are a Brit!" She explained what was going on and told me to tell them I was American. I have never been mistaken for anything but a "Yank" before, but who knows. The funny thing is that she brought me a beat up baseball cap the next day and it was like night and day. Not only did a baseball cap somehow prove my nation of origin, but it improved my reception by the locals by a noticeable degree.
> All because Ryan Air had dirt cheap flights from the UK to Tallinn.
> I have never flown on any of the budget airlines because I am pretty tall. After taking Air India flights from London to BKK and suffering from the short seat pitch, I will never subject myself to that again.
> On edit: I added a couple photos to show both how beautiful Tallinn is, and how sleepy it was. Note the cat sleeping by the shop...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 19675
> View attachment 19676


Tallinn, Estonia, is indeed a very pretty little fortified town - an almost living version of a typical such settlement that formed part of the Hansetic League. It is worth a visit if it can be done at a reasonable price.

I have visited it several times, but never flown to it. It was always a Hydrofoil ride from Helsinki, when I was in Helsinki for over a week and over two weekends for business meetings. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were great little countries to take a side trip to across the Baltic Sea on free weekends.

Now they are seriously working on a rail tunnel under the sea to connect Helsinki to Tallinn, and also connect up two pieces of the EU by a fixed link.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

caravanman said:


> I have probably been lucky, in that I have never been let down with a cancelled flight, but I believe folk are entitled to compensation of some sort.


&


jebr said:


> So far in my roughly 20-30 round trips on ULCCs (mainly Spirit and Frontier) I've had pretty good luck - no cancellations so far, and most delays have been an hour or less.


I was held up for hours and then dumped well outside any reasonable interpretation of city limits after everything had closed for the night. I managed to figure something out but it wasn't a pleasant experience I'd care to repeat. This was on easyJet but they seem to have the same shoulder-shrugging attitude as Ryanair, Spirit, Allegiant, Frontier, etc.



Ziv said:


> I have never flown on any of the budget airlines because I am pretty tall. After taking Air India flights from London to BKK and suffering from the short seat pitch, I will never subject myself to that again.


Seat pitch seems to be decreasing across all airlines and cabins. It's amazing how simply being tall has become something of a disability in the modern era. If current trends continue we may have to charter our own private aircraft at some point. Imagine having to save up a decade's worth of trips just to buy a single flight to Europe or Asia.


----------



## MARC Rider

Ziv said:


> RyanAir has democratized the use of air travel, especially in Europe, for good and ill.
> UK lager louts found it cheaper to fly to Tallinn Estonia for the weekend, pay for a room and booze, than it was to stay home and drink heavily. And Tallinn locals hate them with a passion for their drunken revelry and the destruction it wrought.


Oh my goodness, I hope RyanAir doesn't start westbound transatlantic flights to New York, or even worse, Baltimore. I'd hate to have these guys show up in my hometown, and it might do terrible things to US-UK relations. I guess we're lucky that British sports fans aren't really that much into baseball or American football. (Though I remember reading that some time ago, the NFL played a few games in Britain to try to spark interest.)


----------



## Ziv

The NFL games in England have had pretty poor teams play most of the time, but out of 20 (?) there has only been one that had less than 80,000 people in attendance. NFL games are a novelty since there are only 3 of them per year and they play at Wembley, if memory serves, so it is a large, familiar venue for Londoners. I think the Patriots have played twice, but I am not sure what years.
Somehow I doubt that the NFL will be booking any flights to the UK in a Boeing Max 8, regardless of any assurances from Boeing or the FAA about the safety of the aircraft... Too short legged.



MARC Rider said:


> Oh my goodness, I hope RyanAir doesn't start westbound transatlantic flights to New York, or even worse, Baltimore. I'd hate to have these guys show up in my hometown, and it might do terrible things to US-UK relations. I guess we're lucky that British sports fans aren't really that much into baseball or American football. (Though I remember reading that some time ago, the NFL played a few games in Britain to try to spark interest.)


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Tallinn, Estonia, is indeed a very pretty little fortified town - an almost living version of a typical such settlement that formed part of the Hansetic League. It is worth a visit if it can be done at a reasonable price.



During my Baltic cruise, Tallinn was a city we visited. Really hadn't expected much and was very pleasantly surprised at what I experienced. It's the "old Europe" that I found very much missing (that I had remembered from previous trips sometime ago) during this cruise.


----------



## caravanman

Being 6' 2" tall myself, I always try for an aisle seat on long haul flights. I tend to pay a little extra on the budget airlines to try for a front row seat with more leg room, or an exit row seat.
Being of retirement age myself, I don't seem to find any hostility towards me as a UK resident when I travel abroad...
Talking of Hansiatic League towns reminded me of an interesting visit to Kings Lynn:


----------



## MARC Rider

Ziv said:


> The NFL games in England have had pretty poor teams play most of the time, but out of 20 (?) there has only been one that had less than 80,000 people in attendance. NFL games are a novelty since there are only 3 of them per year and they play at Wembley, if memory serves, so it is a large, familiar venue for Londoners. I think the Patriots have played twice, but I am not sure what years.
> Somehow I doubt that the NFL will be booking any flights to the UK in a Boeing Max 8, regardless of any assurances from Boeing or the FAA about the safety of the aircraft... Too short legged.


So if RyanAir starts flights to BWI, we'll have to worry about British lager louts at Ravens games? Or maybe they're only a problem if British teams are paying. I didn't realize that this experiment was having the success you're implying. Is there a chance that the NFL would establish an expansion team in London? (I guess they would be called the "JetLags" because they'll be playing all their away games halfway around the world.) I guess if they do, that's when we'll have to worry about British lager louts in the US.


----------



## caravanman

MARC Rider said:


> So if RyanAir starts flights to BWI, we'll have to worry about British lager louts at Ravens games? Or maybe they're only a problem if British teams are paying. I didn't realize that this experiment was having the success you're implying. Is there a chance that the NFL would establish an expansion team in London? (I guess they would be called the "JetLags" because they'll be playing all their away games halfway around the world.) I guess if they do, that's when we'll have to worry about British lager louts in the US.



I am starting to feel offended by your continued harping on about "British lager louts"... Don't worry, I am sure your proud boys will protect you...


----------



## MARC Rider

caravanman said:


> I am starting to feel offended by your continued harping on about "British lager louts"... Don't worry, I am sure your proud boys will protect you...


Please accept my apologies. I'm quite sure that most British visitors to the US are not "lager louts," and indeed, lager louts don't have to be British, as we have plenty of our own home-grown varieties, even if we call them something different.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

caravanman said:


> Being 6' 2" tall myself, I always *try* for an aisle seat on long haul flights. I tend to pay a little extra on the budget airlines to *try* for a front row seat with more leg room, or an exit row seat.


What do you do when your attempt at a better seat fails? I used to have a system that made modern coach workable but even after studying seat maps and consulting seat guru I would sometimes end up in a modified or unpublished floor plan that took me out of a bulkhead or exit row and threw me into a knee-crushing seat instead. Once you're on board it's too late to fix anything and even a zero dollar airfare is not worth ten hours of sleepless suffering to me.


----------



## Bob Dylan

In my expierience some of the worst acting "Sports Fans" are located in our very own Country , especially Raider Nation,Iggle Fanatics, the Cubs Bleacher Bums and the Washington Football Team Fans.

Overall though, Soccer Fans as a Group take the Prize for the Wildest and Craziest Sports Worshipers.


----------



## caravanman

Devil's Advocate said:


> What do you do when your attempt at a better seat fails? I used to have a system that made modern coach workable but even after studying seat maps and consulting seat guru I would sometimes end up in a modified or unpublished floor plan that took me out of a bulkhead or exit row and threw me into a knee-crushing seat instead. Once you're on board it's too late to fix anything and even a zero dollar airfare is not worth ten hours of sleepless suffering to me.


Well, I can't sleep on a plane anyway, but I have always been able to sit in the seat that I have reserved. Everyone has different needs for their comfort, there is nothing wrong with paying extra for guaranteed legroom in business, etc. Approaching age 70, I am more drawn towards paying for a level of comfort that I would have thought unnecessary a few years ago. I can still endure a cramped seat on a budget airline for a few hours if needs be, rather than pay top price for a regular airline fare.


----------



## Asher

Bob Dylan said:


> In my expierience some of the worst acting "Sports Fans" are located in our very own Country , especially Raider Nation,Iggle Fanatics, the Cubs Bleacher Bums and the Washington Football Team Fans.
> 
> Overall though, Soccer Fans as a Group take the Prize for the Wildest and Craziest Sports Worshipers.


I hope you’re including soccer mom’s and little league parents


----------



## tgstubbs1

The news had a report of a MAX flying from Dallas to Tulsa. I didn't hear of any problems with it.


----------



## Trogdor

tgstubbs1 said:


> The news had a report of a MAX flying from Dallas to Tulsa. I didn't hear of any problems with it.



Interesting that such a flight would make the news. MAXes have been flying, more or less continuously, since they entered service. Even when the fleet was grounded (for commercial operations) ferry flights and test flights have been occurring regularly across North America (and possibly even the world) since then. Air Canada flew theirs regularly just to keep the pilots current (since they had no other 737s for their pilots to fly). Boeing was still building planes and needed to get them out of Renton so they could make room for more planes being built (many planes probably only made one flight, direct to storage). Other airlines have been flying a few more maintenance flights recently to get the planes to a facility where modifications could be applied.

But I guess the news needs something to talk about when they get bored of the other headlines.


----------



## jis

Contrary to popular belief, the 737, even the MAX is an aerodynamically stable plane. There is a corner case where the fedel in the stick is inconsistent with what is required by the FAR. MCAS was a botched up invention to fix that, which if left unfixed would most likely not have ever caused any catastrophic problem, but the rules of the day would have made it impossible to certify the plane without creating an exception, or at least requiring special flight sim training, which Boeing and Southwest in their infinite wisdom in a salute to desire for making more money thought must be avoided. The rest as we say is history. So the fact that a MAX flew safely is not really much of a news for those in the know at least.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Trogdor said:


> Interesting that such a flight would make the news. MAXes have been flying, more or less continuously, since they entered service. Even when the fleet was grounded (for commercial operations) ferry flights and test flights have been occurring regularly across North America (and possibly even the world) since then. Air Canada flew theirs regularly just to keep the pilots current (since they had no other 737s for their pilots to fly). Boeing was still building planes and needed to get them out of Renton so they could make room for more planes being built (many planes probably only made one flight, direct to storage). Other airlines have been flying a few more maintenance flights recently to get the planes to a facility where modifications could be applied.
> 
> But I guess the news needs something to talk about when they get bored of the other headlines.


Exactly. It's their public 'unveiling' .


----------



## tgstubbs1

jis said:


> Contrary to popular belief, the 737, even the MAX is an aerodynamically stable plane. There is a corner case where the fedel in the stick is inconsistent with what is required by the FAR. MCAS was a botched up invention to fix that, which if left unfixed would most likely not have ever caused any catastrophic problem, but the rules of the day would have made it impossible to certify the plane without creating an exception, or at least requiring special flight sim training, which Boeing and Southwest in their infinite wisdom in a salute to desire for making more money thought must be avoided. The rest as we say is history. So the fact that a MAX flew safely is not really much of a news for those in the know at least.


There was a training accident in a DC-3 in Aurora, OR a few years ago. They were at a relatively high altitude for the apparently tricky stall simulation and even the instructor couldn't recover. 

I guess the Bonanza with the ruddervator tail needed 'special' handling.


----------



## WWW

This just in American Airlines to resume service from New York (presume LaGuardia) to Florida (Miami) with the 737 MAX equipment.
Only that route for now - other cities coming online as maintenance and training are finished for the rest of the fleet.


----------



## HenryK

News broke yesterday that Ryanair, the Irish budget airline, had contracted to buy 75 new 737 Maxes.


----------



## jis

According to Flightglobal, Boeing does not plan to drop the MAX moniker. So the MAXes will continue to be called MAX.

This is the first MAX to be issued an Airworthiness Certificate after the ungrounding...









Aviation Photo #6247077: Boeing 737-9 MAX - United Airlines


I was originally planning on using a 787 for my 250th photo on Airliners, but the moment here, as the first 737 MAX to receive its air worthiness certificate following the 20 month grounding, making a safe landing at Boeing field. She will be N27519 once delivered to United very soon. - Photo...




www.airliners.net


----------



## Devil's Advocate

caravanman said:


> Well, I can't sleep on a plane anyway, but I have always been able to sit in the seat that I have reserved. Everyone has different needs for their comfort, there is nothing wrong with paying extra for guaranteed legroom in business, etc. Approaching age 70, I am more drawn towards paying for a level of comfort that I would have thought unnecessary a few years ago. I can still endure a cramped seat on a budget airline for a few hours if needs be, rather than pay top price for a regular airline fare.


I used to sleep in coach just fine. Many flights I would fall asleep after lift off and wake up just before (or during) landing. I was a different person and coach was a different experience back then. In some ways I wish things had stayed the same. It's nice to travel in first or business but other than a larger seat and a little more room it's honestly not that different from coach service on many routes. With the rise of bus service airlines like Ryanair and the destructive force of a worldwide pandemic I expect the last remnants of full service flying will soon be swept into the history books.



jis said:


> According to Flightglobal, Boeing does not plan to drop the MAX moniker. So the MAXes will continue to be called MAX.


Boeing could rename it the BOOMCRASHSIZZLE and most of us would still fly it. 787's were repeatedly catching fire for preventable reasons and we still flew them as if nothing happened. These days we only fear conspiracies with no evidence to support them. When the evidence is obvious we ignore it. To be clear I do not think the re-MAX is likely to be especially dangerous, but I do expect Boeing and the FAA to certify more needlessly defective aircraft in the future. That is why I will personally choose to avoid the MAX whenever possible. Not for what it is but for what it represents.


----------



## jis

HenryK said:


> News broke yesterday that Ryanair, the Irish budget airline, had contracted to buy 75 new 737 Maxes.


Those are the 737 MAX8-200s, the single class higher capacity MAX8s specially requested by Ryanair.

Those who wished to have a 737MAX with capacity greater than 200 in multi-class configuration, to use as a replacement for the 757s have the MAX10. For example, United has converted 100 of their MAX9 orders to MAX10. That is in addition to a cartload of A321XLR for international 757 replacement, supposedly. MAX10s are a little short on range for such missions.


----------



## railiner

Just came across this, in case anyone's interested...
Be sure to scroll across the photo's with the arrow button...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

From Doug Parker's spin account above...



> In our industry, safety comes above all else.


Which is to say it comes _fourth_ behind schedules, profits, and pride.



> When that safety is in question, we band together to improve.


More like you hide the defects, lie to the regulators, and punish the whistle blowers.



> Now, after the most extensive safety review in commercial aviation history, the 737 MAX has been recertified.


Right after the MAX received the _least_ extensive initial safety review in modern commercial aviation history?


----------



## jiml

Devil's Advocate said:


> From Doug Parker's spin account above...
> 
> 
> Which is to say it comes _fourth_ behind schedules, profits, and pride.
> 
> 
> More like you hide the defects, lie to the regulators, and punish the whistle blowers.
> 
> 
> Right after the MAX received the _least_ extensive initial safety review in modern commercial aviation history?



That's what makes...


----------



## B757Guy

My fiancé is a captain on the 737 MAX, and I had the opportunity to see first hand the changes made to both the simulator training, along with the aircraft itself. My airline also operates the MAX. Given the changes Boeing made, along with the updated training, I would not hesitate to fly on the MAX.


----------



## jis

B757Guy said:


> My fiancé is a captain on the 737 MAX, and I had the opportunity to see first hand the changes made to both the simulator training, along with the aircraft itself. My airline also operates the MAX. Given the changes Boeing made, along with the updated training, I would not hesitate to fly on the MAX.


I would have no problem flying on the MAX as re-certified after the changes. Though I still like the A3xx series planes better.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

November 23, 2020:


B757Guy said:


> In fact, *my fiancé* [...] feels that the *changes Boeing has made*, along with the *training* she has received, that the aircraft is a safe as any other in the fleet to fly. Her sentiments have been echoed by a few of my friends at my airline, who also feel that the *MAX is perfectly safe*.


January 8, 2021:


B757Guy said:


> *My fiancé* is a captain on the 737 MAX, and I had the opportunity to see first hand the changes made to both the simulator training, along with the aircraft itself. My airline also operates the MAX. Given the *changes Boeing made*, along with the updated* training*, I would not hesitate to *fly on the MAX*.


How many times have you repeated this same story and did it come from a pamphlet or something? If changing hearts and minds is so important maybe you could tell us which steps Boeing took to prevent their staff from deceiving regulators? Or when Boeing brass finally agreed that safety testing and analysis should be handled by independent resources? Or how they've ensured that future whistleblowers are no longer ignored and blacklisted?


----------



## PVD

Boeing has reached a 2.5 billion dollar settlement involving criminal conspiracy charges...a settlement was to be expected, no way the gov't would want major criminal convictions, that could trigger a bar on most gov't contracts which just was not going to happen.


----------



## Bob Dylan

B757Guy said:


> My fiancé is a captain on the 737 MAX, and I had the opportunity to see first hand the changes made to both the simulator training, along with the aircraft itself. My airline also operates the MAX. Given the changes Boeing made, along with the updated training, I would not hesitate to fly on the MAX.


Reassuring words from Pros, thanks!


----------



## Dakota 400

PVD said:


> no way the gov't would want major criminal convictions



As a Boeing shareholder, while I know some have lost their positions with the Company, I believe that some of those responsible for the poor decisions and then the attempted cover-up that followed deserve time in prison. 

No surprise at the fine, but that is coming out of the "pockets" of us shareholders. It ought to be coming out of the pockets of the members of the Board of Directors who failed in their duties as far as I am concerned.


----------



## PVD

I should clarify that by saying criminal convictions against the corporation. Individuals would be another story. They are the #2 defense contractor in the US, no way the gov't would do something that stops that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Bob Dylan said:


> Reassuring words from Pros, thanks!


I'm not reassured by patronizing hearsay that promises safety but explains nothing. Look at my post to see how he regurgitates the same talking points with no new information. What he leaves out is that his fiance's livelihood depends on millions of passengers reembracing the Max to maintain her future income. This specific revision may indeed be safe but the systemic failures that approved hidden flaws and glossed over known defects have yet to be fully resolved.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Devil's Advocate said:


> I'm not reassured by patronizing hearsay that promises safety but explains nothing. Look at my post to see how he regurgitates the same talking points with no new information. What he leaves out is that his fiance's livelihood depends on millions of passengers reembracing the Max to maintain her future income. This specific revision may indeed be safe but the systemic failures that approved hidden flaws and glossed over known defects have yet to be fully resolved.


I'm gonna disagree on this Chris, Airline pilots are known for telling like it is !Remember, Captains have total command over the planes they fly.I doubt that any Sane or Sober Pilot would fly an unsafe Airplane full of people,including themselves

If Chris Wyatt( Saxman), who we all know, says the same thing, will you believe him?


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Dakota 400 said:


> The more that I hear and read about these two accidents are concerning. It's concerning for me who often fly on a Boeing product. It's concerning me as a Boeing shareholder looking at my Proxy Card for the Annual Meeting and wondering if it's time to register a vote of "no confidence" in Management.
> 
> Company's financials look good, but what is the corporate culture? Is there some regulatory "coziness" between the Company and the FAA that is a contributing factor? Is trying to rush the development and deployment of an aircraft that competes with a similar Airbus aircraft a contributing factor?



Another Boeing 737 crash today... According to registration details, the plane is a 26-year-old Boeing 737-500. Lots of air accidents in Indonesia... and lots of crashes involving the 737. 

According to the news article... "
The Sriwijaya Air 737 was 26 years old. While airlines do tend to prefer to fly newer aircraft - because they have lower running costs - it is not uncommon to find planes of this age still in service. Indonesia, though, has a relatively poor record on aviation safety. For more than a decade carriers from the region were banned from flying into the EU. Until recently, the perception had been that standards were improving, and in 2018 all Indonesian airlines were removed from the EU's blacklist."


----------



## jis

It should be emphasized that the Indonesian 737-500 crash is really not a MAX issue.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Bob Dylan said:


> I'm gonna disagree on this Chris, Airline pilots are known for telling like it is !Remember, Captains have total command over the planes they fly.I doubt that any Sane or Sober Pilot would fly an unsafe Airplane full of people,including themselves If Chris Wyatt( Saxman), who we all know, says the same thing, will you believe him?


If pilots actually know best then why weren't they warning us to stop flying _before_ the Max started crashing? Probably because these are incredibly complex machines and commercial pilots did not redesign the aircraft or audit the code. They are not in a position to know about every hidden flaw and defect. I don't blame them for that but asking pilots which aircraft are unsafe is a bit like asking a doctor which procedures will result in malpractice mistakes or asking a broker which index fund will outperform his advice. In most cases a man is only as honest as his paycheck allows and the honorable few who bucked that trend were ignored and destroyed. If Chris/Saxman can explain how the systemic flaws and rubber stamp approvals that gave us everything from the 747 Combi to the 737 Max have finally been addressed then I'd be happy to listen, because this 2.5% fine with no jail time won't cut it.


----------



## Asher

Devil's Advocate said:


> If pilots actually know best then why weren't they warning us to stop flying _before_ the Max started crashing? Probably because these are incredibly complex machines and commercial pilots did not redesign the aircraft or audit the code. They are not in a position to know about every hidden flaw and defect. I don't blame them for that but asking pilots which aircraft are unsafe is a bit like asking a doctor which procedures will result in malpractice mistakes or asking a broker which index fund will outperform his advice. In most cases a man is only as honest as his paycheck allows and the honorable few who bucked that trend were ignored and destroyed. If Chris/Saxman can explain how the systemic flaws and rubber stamp approvals that gave us everything from the 747 Combi to the 737 Max have finally been addressed then I'd be happy to listen, because this 2.5% fine with no jail time won't cut it.


I don't think honestly had anything to do with these crashes. I feel like the pilots felt in their mind they were competent to fly and understood the aircraft. Apparently, in the end they didn't understand and it led to losing control. Thinking and knowing, a huge difference.


----------



## jis

anumberone said:


> I don't think honestly had anything to do with these crashes. I feel like the pilots felt in their mind they were competent to fly and understood the aircraft. Apparently, in the end they didn't understand and it led to losing control. Thinking and knowing, a huge difference.


It is hard for them to know about something that they were not told about, and the information carefully hidden from them. Because this hidden functionality engaged only rarely, not too many experienced it, and it also looked a lot like something else many were familiar with in its mild form, which were corrected by a few by pulling a select fuse.

Bottom line, I am not sure that the pilots were in a position to know enough about it. The subterfuge was at a different level, and unfortunately, I am not convinced that the general problem at that level has been fixed, though this specific one has most likely been fixed.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

anumberone said:


> I don't think honestly had anything to do with these crashes. I feel like the pilots felt in their mind they were competent to fly and understood the aircraft. Apparently, in the end they didn't understand and it led to losing control. Thinking and knowing, a huge difference.


I don't think they have a death wish or that they intend to deceive us, but neither do they have all necessary information and expertise to make sweeping claims about what is safe and what is not. I see a similar mindset in many other industries. I consider myself an honest person but how many times have you heard me bring up safety in the context of my career? People are maimed and killed in the field but you'll rarely see me talk about it. It's a fundamental conflict of interest and if you ever see me tell you that some industry I work with is perfectly safe you should probably ignore it.


----------



## Chris I

Devil's Advocate said:


> I'm not reassured by patronizing hearsay that promises safety but explains nothing. Look at my post to see how he regurgitates the same talking points with no new information. What he leaves out is that his fiance's livelihood depends on millions of passengers reembracing the Max to maintain her future income. This specific revision may indeed be safe but the systemic failures that approved hidden flaws and glossed over known defects have yet to be fully resolved.


Do you work for Boeing? If not, then you have no evidence for your last statement.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Chris I said:


> Do you work for Boeing? If not, then you have no evidence for your last statement.


Several employees have explained what is wrong with Boeing's safety culture after being ignored and pushed out. To the best of my knowledge Boeing has still refused to admit culpability other than claiming it was an unfortunate mistake rather than a systemic flaw in their business model. It's hard to fix a problem you refuse to admit ever existed.


----------



## B757Guy

Devil's Advocate said:


> November 23, 2020:
> 
> January 8, 2021:
> 
> How many times have you repeated this same story and did it come from a pamphlet or something? If changing hearts and minds is so important maybe you could tell us which steps Boeing took to prevent their staff from deceiving regulators? Or when Boeing brass finally agreed that safety testing and analysis should be handled by independent resources? Or how they've ensured that future whistleblowers are no longer ignored and blacklisted?



The pamphlet is in place for "sarcastic misanthropes" who seemingly have nothing better to do than argue. I'm not looking to change anyone's hearts or minds, especially yours. Fly on the MAX or don't, I could care less... 

That being said, what Boeing did was disgusting on every level. I agree with you on that front.


----------



## jis

jis said:


> Bottom line, I am not sure that the pilots were in a position to know enough about it. The subterfuge was at a different level, and unfortunately, I am not convinced that the general problem at that level has been fixed, though this specific one has most likely been fixed.


I would go so far as to add that the problem extends quite far beyond Boeing. It is a pretty generic systemic problem in the US at present. Creating ones own "truth enclave" and trying to capture everyone into it, even though it is disconnected from reality, and then trying to operate based on that fantasy, seems to be a national pastime these days. But then reality is relentless and has a way of catching up, often violently, as illustrated by the progression of the 737MAX incident.


----------



## Asher

Devil's Advocate said:


> I don't think they have a death wish or that they intend to deceive us, but neither do they have all necessary information and expertise to make sweeping claims about what is safe and what is not. I see a similar mindset in many other industries. I consider myself an honest person but how many times have you heard me bring up safety in the context of my career? People are maimed and killed in the field but you'll rarely see me talk about it. It's a fundamental conflict of interest and if you ever see me tell you that some industry I work with is perfectly safe you should probably ignore it.


Well, I agree it something other than just Sh** happens. Other than that, you’re guess is a good as mine.


----------



## Dakota 400

Chris I said:


> Do you work for Boeing? If not, then you have no evidence for your last statement.



I do not work for Boeing. I am a Boeing shareholder. Most, if not all, of the members of the Board of Directors during the development of the 737 MAX are still holding their positions. Their "immediate underlings", some in the Executive Suite, have been told to leave. But, the "ultimate buck stops" with the Board who hired and failed to properly supervise those responsible for the deaths of those aboard those two planes and the damage that has been done to the Company for which they are responsible. Oh, I think a new Board-level Committee has been formed because of the accidents. But, how much trust does this shareholder have in what that Committee is actually doing? I fear this is a "feel good" exercise and an "attempt" to show the public, FAA, and their shareholders that "we are doing something".


----------



## MARC Rider

Dakota 400 said:


> I do not work for Boeing. I am a Boeing shareholder. Most, if not all, of the members of the Board of Directors during the development of the 737 MAX are still holding their positions. Their "immediate underlings", some in the Executive Suite, have been told to leave. But, the "ultimate buck stops" with the Board who hired and failed to properly supervise those responsible for the deaths of those aboard those two planes and the damage that has been done to the Company for which they are responsible. Oh, I think a new Board-level Committee has been formed because of the accidents. But, how much trust does this shareholder have in what that Committee is actually doing? I fear this is a "feel good" exercise and an "attempt" to show the public, FAA, and their shareholders that "we are doing something".


One of the issues with the way the Corporate Overlords run companies is that the top managers (CEOs, etc.) commonly neuter the "Directors," the better to allow the top management to mismanage/loot the corporation for their own benefit. I'm not sure what the situation is/was with Boeing, but I do agree that Directors of corporations should have a realistic chance of getting punished when the executives they are supposed to supervise do naughty things. As far as the stockholders, of course, the whole _purpose_ of a corporation is to limit the liability of the investor/owners so that they are induced into investing in the company. Of course, I'm not sure how buying stock from a previous stockholder in an already functioning company provides needed capital for that company, but, then, I'm not a Corporate Overlord, even if I'm invested in the Market via mutual finds and ETFs.


----------



## Trogdor

Dakota 400 said:


> But, the "ultimate buck stops" with the Board who hired and failed to properly supervise those responsible for the deaths of those aboard those two planes and the damage that has been done to the Company for which they are responsible.



Why stop there? Why not blame the shareholders that voted for the board?


----------



## WWW

The wreckage has been found and the black (Orange) boxes located ---
Therein we will know more about what happened -
Pilot error ?
Weather conditions ?
Maintenance issues ?
Sabotage ?
Other ?
Combination of all the above ?

What is very sad is the loss of the 10 youngsters - cutting life all too short for them !


----------



## MARC Rider

Trogdor said:


> Why stop there? Why not blame the shareholders that voted for the board?


As I mentioned earlier, the whole point of corporations is to shield the shareholders from liability.
Perhaps the people to blame are the stock market traders who reward with higher share prices corporate managers who cut corners in pursuit of short-term profits.


----------



## Asher

WWW said:


> The wreckage has been found and the black (Orange) boxes located ---
> Therein we will know more about what yourhappened -
> Pilot error ?
> Weather conditions ?
> Maintenance issues ?
> Sabotage ?
> Other ?
> Combination of all the above ?
> 
> What is very sad is the loss of the 10 youngsters - cutting life all too short for them !



Certainly just a hunch, I think it took off in bad weather, flew into a monsoon that shut down both engines. That not the root cause, just the result.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Trogdor said:


> Why stop there? Why not blame the shareholders that voted for the board?


I support blaming institutional investors and the regulators who give them endless leash to run with, but how often can individual investors vote for something the board doesn't hand them in the first place? How often can they expect meaningful compensation from a large cap's dangerous gamble? I guess we can blame them for not engaging with the press and regulators but the success rate for activist investing at the individual level is extremely low under current law. I would support granting more protections to individual investors who want to expose genuine problems in good faith but I'm not a fan of further weaponizing subjective moral judgements.


----------



## flitcraft

Devil's Advocate said:


> I'm fine with blaming institutional investors, and the regulators who give them endless leash to run with, but does anyone really think a bunch of small time proxy moves would have actually changed anything? How often can individual investors vote for something the board doesn't hand them in the first place? How often can they expect meaningful compensation from a large cap's lethal product gamble? I guess we can blame them for not engaging the press and regulators but the success rate for activist investing is extremely low under current law.


My husband used to be an acoustics engineer at Boeing until his retirement 7 years ago, and he says that Boeing once had a robust safety culture, but after the McDonnell Douglas merger, things changed to an 'enhance shareholder value' culture. That also means pushing out the experienced unionized engineering staff in favor of the 'right to work for less' staff in South Carolina. He had planned to work at Boeing for a few more years, but, along with many of his generation, decided it wasn't the Boeing they had known. One of his younger co-workers decided to try to transfer to South Carolina, where most of the commercial aircraft work is being transferred, but he would have had to take a big pay cut to do it, so he left and is now working for a tech company instead. The brain drain and experience drain there is serious.

And I couldn't agree more that individual shareholders can't control what the suits in a company do--only institutional investors have enough clout to do that, and they themselves are part of the 'enhance shareholder value' culture that leads to cutting corners, outsourcing, and pooh-poohing expressions of concern by the engineers as 'nervous nellies.' I know that it is popular in some quarters to decry government regulation, but the lack of government oversight on the 737-Max led directly to the tragic consequences of leaving the foxes to guard henhouses.


----------



## Dakota 400

flitcraft said:


> I know that it is popular in some quarters to decry government regulation, but the lack of government oversight on the 737-Max led directly to the tragic consequences of leaving the foxes to guard henhouses.



Deregulation of the airlines and a lack of proper oversight of the aircraft building industry has led us to where we are today. Medium/small sized airline markets have experienced a reduction of service with less competition and a corresponding increase in prices for what flights are available. But, the taxpayers of those markets are left paying for bonds that were issued to build the airports that were designed to serve passenger and flight numbers far in excess of what is now being experienced. 

For Boeing, we shareholders have been punished through a severe contraction of our investment's worth, a loss of the Company's reputation, and the liklihood that it will be some time before our investments and our Company's reputation will be restored. 



Devil's Advocate said:


> but how often can individual investors vote for something the board doesn't hand them in the first place?



Exactly. Once upon a time--not that long ago, actually--Proxy Cards had space for shareholders to write comments. Were they read? And, by whom? Who knows. But, that ability to communicate with the Company has disappeared for each and every Company in which I invest. 

Yes, one can communicate with the Company's Investor Relations Department. I have never found that to be satisfactory. If I receive a response, it will be a "thank you for your letter" type of message or one like what I receive from two of the three of my Congressional representatives: I write about topic A and receive a reply about topic Z.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> I support blaming institutional investors and the regulators who give them endless leash to run with, but how often can individual investors vote for something the board doesn't hand them in the first place? How often can they expect meaningful compensation from a large cap's dangerous gamble? I guess we can blame them for not engaging with the press and regulators but the success rate for activist investing at the individual level is extremely low under current law. I would support granting more protections to individual investors who want to expose genuine problems in good faith but I'm not a fan of further weaponizing subjective moral judgements.


I am not well-versed in this topic, but haven't small 'activist' shareholder's on occasion banded together and sued their board for various malfeasance issue's?


----------



## jiml

Canada officially announced permission for the MAX to resume flying today.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> I am not well-versed in this topic, but haven't small 'activist' shareholder's on occasion banded together and sued their board for various malfeasance issue's?


Although filing a lawsuit is easy winning significant damages or corrective measures without the assistance of institutional investors is very difficult. Most shareholder lawsuits rarely go anywhere and most of the power is in the threat of dumping enough stock to harm bonuses and dominate the news cycle with negative press.


----------



## jiml

WestJet returning Boeing’s troubled 737 MAX 8 to service with commercial flight


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> WestJet returning Boing's troubled 737 MAX 8 to service with commercial flight



Prior to the Max8 groundings...WestJet was building a Transatlantic Max8 'mini-hub' in Halifax with routes to Paris, Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester and London Gatwick. Air Canada also had to drop a MAX 8 route to Heathrow......and Icelandair to Reykjavík.

We've got the MAX back.......now lets get this other thing under control so we can start travelling again!


----------



## jiml

Boeing's infamous 737 Max plane has a new issue, and 16 airlines are being told to ground planes


----------



## Bob Dylan

jiml said:


> Boeing's infamous 737 Max plane has a new issue, and 16 airlines are being told to ground planes


----------



## Devil's Advocate

So far we have a lethal software defect, insufficient training, a wiring harness flaw, and now a grounding failure?


----------



## jiml

Devil's Advocate said:


> So far we have a lethal software defect, insufficient training, a wiring harness flaw, and now a grounding failure?


Yeah, that about sums it up.


----------



## Cal

It's getting really hard to continue to support Boeing these days


----------



## Dakota 400

Devil's Advocate said:


> So far we have a lethal software defect, insufficient training, a wiring harness flaw, and now a grounding failure?



My "angry" reaction was directed at Boeing.

Time to stop production of this model. All planes of this model being scrapped, with the metal turned into material and used to make a new plane that will be carefully, thoroughly well designed and tested.

I was somewhat pleased to see that there are a number of new members on the Boeing's Board when I read their shareholder report and proxy statement. However, there are still too many of the members of the Board who are holdovers from the previous Boards. I voted to support the "new blood"; I voted against those Board members who need to take their stock options and "get the heck out of Chicago".


----------



## Dakota 400

Cal said:


> It's getting really hard to continue to support Boeing these days



As a shareholder of the company, the thing that most irritates me is that the problems seem to be in the division of the company that produces the passenger planes. The other business segments seem not to have the problems that that segment has had. 

Boeing has become too large of a Company for it to be properly managed? Time for the spin-off of the passenger plane segment of the Company so that those in charge of the management of that segment can have more direct oversight of that one segment as compared to what is currently required?


----------



## jis

Boeing has had problems with getting their passenger spacecraft certified too of late.


----------



## John Santos

jis said:


> Boeing has had problems with getting their passenger spacecraft certified too of late.


Not to mention the SLS, which if it actually launches this year will be 5 years late and billion over budget.


----------



## HenryK

To be fair to Boeing, the recall involves about 60 out of the 800-some 737 Maxes already built, and the flaw is in a backup system. The flaw was discovered in normal inspections, not via accident . . . the system is working as it should. It is an area of concern but the sky is not falling.


----------



## Trogdor

If one were to look at the FAA database, one would note over 100 Airworthiness Directives in just the past 60 days, and 25 or so for this month alone.

A good number of them apply to Airbus planes. But because it’s the 737MAX, it makes the news.


----------



## caravanman

HenryK said:


> To be fair to Boeing, the recall involves about 60 out of the 800-some 737 Maxes already built, and the flaw is in a backup system. The flaw was discovered in normal inspections, not via accident . . . the system is working as it should. It is an area of concern but the sky is not falling.


Do we know which planes out of the 800 odd require grounding? What is the difference between those that do and those that don't? Something changed at some point, so that change ought to have been discovered / investigated/ prevented. The sky may not be falling, but as an airline user, this sort of large scale deviation from the norm in an aircraft back up system , not just in one plane, is not something to just gloss over?


----------



## adamj023

The max problem of grounding sounds like an easy inspection and repair process if necessary for the latest issue. I bet turnaround time could be a few hours per plane tops and is only a fraction of the 737 Max out there so should be back in service quickly. There are always small scale issues that occur which are normally resolved in the regular maintenance intervals.


----------



## Ziv

Boeing's military aircraft production hasn't done that much better than its civilian aircraft production. Look at the KC-46A Pegasus. 10 years after the contract was awarded we are still a couple years from full operational capability. There have been a litany of widely varying problems but they all come down to poor corporate leadership.
One other thing about the article I link to, notice how seldom Boeing is named? What is up with that? 








Air Force Says KC-46 Is A “Lemon” That It’s Trying To Make Lemonade Out Of


The Air Force is evaluating using the Pegasus for limited operational missions, but it’s still years away from providing its intended mission set.




www.thedrive.com


----------



## MARC Rider

Ziv said:


> Boeing's military aircraft production hasn't done that much better than its civilian aircraft production. Look at the KC-46A Pegasus. 10 years after the contract was awarded we are still a couple years from full operational capability. There have been a litany of widely varying problems but they all come down to poor corporate leadership.
> One other thing about the article I link to, notice how seldom Boeing is named? What is up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air Force Says KC-46 Is A “Lemon” That It’s Trying To Make Lemonade Out Of
> 
> 
> The Air Force is evaluating using the Pegasus for limited operational missions, but it’s still years away from providing its intended mission set.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com


From I read, the problem with this new tanker is with a remote sensing device on the refilling boom. This seems to be installed so that the boom operator can now sit up front in the cockpit rather than in the back of the plane where he or she can directly see the boom in real time. If that was a capability insisted on by the Air Force, perhaps Boeing isn't the only one at blame, here.


----------



## Ziv

MARC Rider, the boom issue was one of 4 Category 1 problems the Pegasus has had. The others were the inability for the aircraft to refuel A-10's, the boom randomly scraping refueling aircraft and the fuel leaks that have been detected on half the KC-46's delivered so far. 
The most embarrassing one, though not a Cat 1 issue, is the fact that several of the KC-46's have been delivered with trash, rags, tools and debris left inside the fuselage lining, out of sight but possibly in a place that could sever wiring or contribute to fires. One aircraft was actually delivered with a ladder and a string of lights behind a bulkhead. 


MARC Rider said:


> From I read, the problem with this new tanker is with a remote sensing device on the refilling boom. This seems to be installed so that the boom operator can now sit up front in the cockpit rather than in the back of the plane where he or she can directly see the boom in real time. If that was a capability insisted on by the Air Force, perhaps Boeing isn't the only one at blame, here.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Ziv said:


> MARC Rider, the boom issue was one of 4 Category 1 problems the Pegasus has had. The others were the inability for the aircraft to refuel A-10's, the boom randomly scraping refueling aircraft and the fuel leaks that have been detected on half the KC-46's delivered so far.
> The most embarrassing one, though not a Cat 1 issue, is the fact that several of the KC-46's have been delivered with trash, rags, tools and debris left inside the fuselage lining, out of sight but possibly in a place that could sever wiring or contribute to fires. One aircraft was actually delivered with a ladder and a string of lights behind a bulkhead.


Sounds like what comes out of the Chicago Amtrak Yards! Lol


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dakota 400 said:


> Time to stop production of this model. All planes of this model being scrapped, with the metal turned into material and used to make a new plane that will be carefully, thoroughly well designed and tested.


The aircraft itself can probably be made safe with enough corrections, but the _system_ that created it remains largely intact, so even if they started over they could potentially fall into the same trap again.



HenryK said:


> To be fair to Boeing, the recall involves about 60 out of the 800-some 737 Maxes already built, and the flaw is in a backup system. The flaw was discovered in normal inspections, not via accident . . . the system is working as it should. It is an area of concern but the sky is not falling.


By this logic a car that stalls on Monday but runs on Tuesday is "working as it should" despite lacking dependability.



Trogdor said:


> If one were to look at the FAA database, one would note over 100 Airworthiness Directives in just the past 60 days, and 25 or so for this month alone. A good number of them apply to Airbus planes. But because it’s the 737MAX, it makes the news.


How many of those directives resulted in dozens of grounded aircraft?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

This video states that most of the penalties went to airlines rather than families of dead passengers and nearly all corrective effort was focused on fixing the MAX rather than resolving Boeing and the FAA's conflict of interest.


----------



## Asher

adamj023 said:


> The max problem of grounding sounds like an easy inspection and repair process if necessary for the latest issue. I bet turnaround time could be a few hours per plane tops and is only a fraction of the 737 Max out there so should be back in service quickly. There are always small scale issues that occur which are normally resolved in the regular maintenance intervals.


Were not talking about the same 737 max that became un flyable with Boeing not able to give a reasonable answer for are we, or is this is a new issue on top of all the old problems. Small scale. Really!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

anumberone said:


> Were not talking about the same 737 max that became un flyable with Boeing not able to give a reasonable answer for are we, or is this is a new issue on top of all the old problems. Small scale. Really!


I guess grounding 100+ aircraft and suspending new deliveries is a minor event to some folks. Happens all the time don't ya know. He also estimated a few hours of effort "tops" but the actual estimate is a few days per aircraft.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Deliveries of the 737 MAX have resumed following regulator approval of the proposed fix but increased oversight remains a priority in Congress.









Boeing resumes 737 MAX deliveries following electrical issue -source


Boeing Co (BA.N) resumed deliveries of its best-selling 737 MAX on Wednesday, following approval of a fix for an electrical grounding issue that sidelined dozens of jets, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters.




www.reuters.com







> Democrats on the House Transportation Committee are launching a fresh review of Boeing’s 737 Max, seeking records from the company and the Federal Aviation Administration about a manufacturing issue that recently led to dozens of the jets being grounded.



Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/05/18/faa-boeing-737-records


----------



## Ziv

I have had family members that worked for Boeing since the early 1960's and we have always been a Boeing family. And Boeing treated our family pretty well. We are down to 2 family members that still work for Boeing and when I pointed out that Boeing had had a series of missteps over the years, one of them was not sure what I was talking about, other than the Max. I pointed out that the KC-46 Pegasus has had a raft of problems and is years late, that the 787 Dreamliner had the battery problems and now it looks like their 02 system is a problem as well, that both the StarLiner and the SLS are stumbling badly, plus of course the 737 Max self inflicted wounds. Her response was that Boeing builds a lot of products and there are bound to be a few problems. I was surprised by her attitude. She is an Electrical Engineer and pretty much a perfectionist when it comes to work.
I haven't really spent enough time and effort to see where the problems seem to have really originated but my cursory studies seem to indicate that most of the larger problems have their origins a few years after the corporate HQ was moved from Seattle to Chicago. It seems like the leadership emphasis has moved from engineering excellence to improving the bottom line. To this outsider it seems like the engineers in Boeings leadership team have lost their dominant role to the MBA's. Just my two cents.
Edited to answer Dakota's question r.e. what I meant by EE.



Devil's Advocate said:


> Deliveries of the 737 MAX have resumed following regulator approval of the proposed fix but increased oversight remains a priority in Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing resumes 737 MAX deliveries following electrical issue -source
> 
> 
> Boeing Co (BA.N) resumed deliveries of its best-selling 737 MAX on Wednesday, following approval of a fix for an electrical grounding issue that sidelined dozens of jets, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/05/18/faa-boeing-737-records


----------



## Dakota 400

Ziv said:


> but my cursory studies seem to indicate that most of the larger problems have their origins a few years after the corporate HQ was moved from Seattle to Chicago. It seems like the leadership emphasis has moved from engineering excellence to improving the bottom line. To this outsider it seems like the engineers in Boeings leadership team have lost their dominant role to the MBA's. Just my two cents.



As a long time Boeing shareholder, your diagnosis of the root of the problems is correct. There is a slow changeover in membership of the Board of Directors. In the past couple of Annual Meetings, I have been voting against everything/everybody that the Board recommends a vote "For". 2021, I found some "new blood" on the Board and voted for them while continuing to vote against those who have been on the Board in the past. I hope my slight optimism will not be misplaced.



Ziv said:


> She is an EE



Does EE mean electrical engineer?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Shareholders may pursue 737 MAX claims against Boeing board, court rules


A Delaware judge ruled on Tuesday that Boeing's board of directors must face a lawsuit from shareholders over two fatal 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people in less than six months.




www.reuters.com




Although several claims were apparently dismissed before having their day in court other claims will be allowed to move forward.


----------



## Dakota 400

Devil's Advocate said:


> Shareholders may pursue 737 MAX claims against Boeing board, court rules
> 
> 
> A Delaware judge ruled on Tuesday that Boeing's board of directors must face a lawsuit from shareholders over two fatal 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people in less than six months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although several claims were apparently dismissed before having their day in court other claims will be allowed to move forward.



I have been a part of class action claims for a few companies over the years and did receive some compensation for my participation. I am currently a member of a class action claim for overcharging by a consortium of trans-Pacific airlines that has been ongoing for some time. I thought the issue was "dead". I missed a deadline or something to do whatever needed to be done. A few days ago, I received a notice that my claim was valid and settlement was "near". Whatever time frame "near" means. 

It is "work" for an individual to participate in such class action suits is what I have learned.


----------



## PaTrainFan

Dakota 400 said:


> I have been a part of class action claims for a few companies over the years and did receive some compensation for my participation. I am currently a member of a class action claim for overcharging by a consortium of trans-Pacific airlines that has been ongoing for some time. I thought the issue was "dead". I missed a deadline or something to do whatever needed to be done. A few days ago, I received a notice that my claim was valid and settlement was "near". Whatever time frame "near" means.
> 
> It is "work" for an individual to participate in such class action suits is what I have learned.


The only winners in class action lawsuits are the plaintiffs' attorneys who make millions. In the run of the mill, smaller class action lawsuits generally the regular folks get a pittance. A gift card, a free ticket to a performance., etc. The "big" Equifax breach class action from a few years ago which promised in excess of $100 per participant and has dragged on and on will end up being next to nothing, or free credit monitoring which you can now get on your own anywhere, when it's all said and done.


----------



## flitcraft

The point of class actions suits, I think, is not compensation for past malfeasance. It's to force a company to stop a practice that is hurting consumers. As they say, "Steal a hundred bucks from a guy and you'll go to jail. Steal fifty bucks from a million guys and it's just business as usual." Class action suits put a stop to low level thievery in the future.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

PaTrainFan said:


> The only winners in class action lawsuits are the plaintiffs' attorneys who make millions.


The individual remedy may be meager but the total payout is designed to be extremely memorable to the defendant and force attention on harmful actions that would otherwise become the cost of doing abusive business.



PaTrainFan said:


> The "big" Equifax breach class action from a few years ago which promised in excess of $100 per participant and has dragged on and on will end up being next to nothing, or free credit monitoring which you can now get on your own anywhere, when it's all said and done.


The delay was caused by the settlement being challenged on the basis of unacceptably low payouts and overly restrictive terms. So would you prefer a higher amount with a longer delay or a lower amount on a faster schedule?



PaTrainFan said:


> In the run of the mill, smaller class action lawsuits generally the regular folks get a pittance. A gift card, a free ticket to a performance., etc.


In my class actions I usually generally received a judgement roughly equivalent to splitting the difference. Which makes sense since these are negotiated settlements. I guess if I was expecting a big payday I would have been disappointed but the amounts received seemed like a fair outcome in return for zero effort and funding on my part. Anyone who thinks class actions are a useless gesture can file their own lawsuit and chase whatever judgement they feel is appropriate.


----------



## Barb Stout

I was a member of a class action lawsuit and received 38 cents. Of course, I wouldn't have gotten anything if I wasn't a member of the class action.


----------



## Dakota 400

Devil's Advocate said:


> In my class actions I usually generally received a judgement roughly equivalent to splitting the difference. Which makes sense since these are negotiated settlements. I guess if I was expecting a big payday I would have been disappointed but the amounts received seemed like a fair outcome in return for zero effort and funding on my part. Anyone who thinks class actions are a useless gesture can file their own lawsuit and chase whatever judgement they feel is appropriate.



That is the way that I view my participation in a class action suit. Don't expect a large payday, but, if in the view of the Court, I have been harmed by the Company involved, I will gladly accept whatever the Court determines is appropriate. 

Re: effort involved to participate--That varies with the suit. A few are "no effort"; those result in the smallest awards, in my opinion. The ones that require documentation provided by me are the ones from which I have gotten the largest settlements. If the suit requires one to provide dates of purchases and sale of stock along with the number of shares: oh my! Those can cause the thought of "is doing this really worth my time and effort"?


----------



## Night Ranger

Barb Stout said:


> I was a member of a class action lawsuit and received 38 cents. Of course, I wouldn't have gotten anything if I wasn't a member of the class action.


My wife was notified today that she will be receiving seven dollars and change as part of the settlement of a class action suit involving milk and milk products. The notice also stated that there were far more participants in the suit than anticipated which lowered the amount each participant received. We will use it to buy more milk when we do our weekly grocery shopping.


----------



## snaebyllej

Most class action shareholder suits that I've seen won't even pay out unless your share is at least $10.


----------



## MikefromCrete

The only people who benefit from class action suits are the lawyers.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MikefromCrete said:


> The only people who benefit from class action suits are the lawyers.


I disagree but I also struggle to explain how average everyday people benefit from class actions in a way that gets around their disappointment of expecting a significant personal payout from any legal action. I thought that after tort reform passed Americans would see that the promised discounts never materialized and would realized they had been bamboozled, but as soon as it passed they forgot all about it.


----------



## Dakota 400

Night Ranger said:


> My wife was notified today that she will be receiving seven dollars and change as part of the settlement of a class action suit involving milk and milk products.



Better than nothing, I think. At least, the amount is small enough you won't have to declare it on your 2021 1040.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dakota 400 said:


> Better than nothing, I think. At least, the amount is small enough you won't have to declare it on your 2021 1040.


A few years ago I received a Check for $1.47 as my payment for a Class action Suit being settled!( probably cost more to issue/process the check which I didn't cash, it's in my " Save Drawer".)

Currently waiting on my " Windfall" from a being part of a Class Action against Turbo Tax!


----------



## jis

The rot at Boeing is not just in aviation. It infects space too …









NASA likely to move some astronauts off Starliner due to extended delays — Ars Technica


Astronauts assigned to Boeing flights may end up on SpaceX's Crew-5 mission.




apple.news


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> The rot at Boeing is not just in aviation. It infects space too …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA likely to move some astronauts off Starliner due to extended delays — Ars Technica
> 
> 
> Astronauts assigned to Boeing flights may end up on SpaceX's Crew-5 mission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apple.news



Sticky valves? I wonder if the Boeing geniuses have ever heard of WD-40? Seriously, though, this article does indicate that sloppiness in software development as well in the engineering/construction end of the business continues.


----------



## west point

I may be old school but flying an airplane without needing systems to keep you out of trouble are the best. The DC-9 and B-727 were aircraft that could have serious problems either electrical and/or Hydraulic but you could get them home easily. Engines could suck fuel and controls although heavier on 727 were useable. Trim operation could be completed manually and runaway trim was very evident.

The Max however appears to need all sorts of help to remain stable. The larger engines on the Max requires them to be placed well ahead of the wings to facilitate ground clearances. This places the thrust well ahead of the wings center of lift and center of gravity. So the engines give an nose up moment that has to be counteracted by control surface mitigation. That makes pilots always have to be alert. A - 10 second pilot lapse when a computer doesn't work the hydraulics can be a problem,. Then again if a computer makes pitch down commands that are dangerous ---- ******

These problems could have IMO be avoided by adapting and using the B-757 wing with its longer landing gear allowing engines to be in the "proper" location. Better still would have been just adapting 757s to MAX design desires.


----------



## PVD

If that were done, it would not be a 737 derivative, it would be a different plane requiring an extensive new plane certification process, and pilot transition training would be much longer since you would most likely be looking at a different type rating. &%& was a great plane, but it would not be economically competitive. Think all new tooling and assembly line as well...


----------



## Trogdor

west point said:


> I may be old school but flying an airplane without needing systems to keep you out of trouble are the best. The DC-9 and B-727 were aircraft that could have serious problems either electrical and/or Hydraulic but you could get them home easily. Engines could suck fuel and controls although heavier on 727 were useable. Trim operation could be completed manually and runaway trim was very evident.



Safety records of today’s planes (MAX notwithstanding) vs. the DC9 and 727 would say otherwise.




> The Max however appears to need all sorts of help to remain stable. The larger engines on the Max requires them to be placed well ahead of the wings to facilitate ground clearances. This places the thrust well ahead of the wings center of lift and center of gravity. So the engines give an nose up moment that has to be counteracted by control surface mitigation.



That is not at all true.

“We also pushed the aircraft to its limits during flight tests, assessed the behaviour of the aircraft in failure scenarios, and could confirm that *the aircraft is stable and has no tendency to pitch-up even without the MCAS*.” Ref: EASA lays out its proposed conditions for return to service of the Boeing 737 MAX | EASA



> These problems could have IMO be avoided by adapting and using the B-757 wing with its longer landing gear allowing engines to be in the "proper" location. Better still would have been just adapting 757s to MAX design desires.



The 757 is overweight and overbuilt and would never compete with the 737 and A320. There’s a reason its sales (which were never that high; IIRC it averaged something like 25/year throughout its whole life) went to zero shortly after the 737NG was introduced. There is also no engine in the 757 thrust category available, and would have cost extra billions to develop, whereas the 737 MAX uses a variant of the engines also used on the A320neo. The fact that the 757 is heavier means you’d need more fuel burn for the same performance, which would also immediately put it at a disadvantage.

All these problems could have been avoided by Boeing engineers having proper time to evaluate a couple of relatively small design decisions, by their sales team not literally copy-pasting the phrasing of the training requirements in their contract with Southwest Airlines, and by a corporate culture not being more invested in “Jedi mind tricks” to lie to regulators to cover up stuff they just assumed would be okay. Structurally and aerodynamically, the 737 MAX is fine, and this is backed up by regulators around the world who looked at the plane with a fine-toothed comb after realizing they couldn’t trust the FAA’s word.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

*DOWNFALL: The Case Against Boeing | Official Trailer | Netflix*


----------



## Cal

Devil's Advocate said:


> *DOWNFALL: The Case Against Boeing | Official Trailer | Netflix*



I intend to watch that this weekend, I saw the trailer last week. Looks interesting


----------



## Acela150

I watched it Saturday night. It was very well put together. I also watched the episode of PBS Frontline on the MAX on YouTube for free that PBS posted. Although, I paid the $3 for it to keep it on my iPad forever.


----------



## jis

Now there is an entire long thread on Downfall at airliners.net:



Downfall: The case against Boeing. - Airliners.net


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Cal said:


> I intend to watch that this weekend, I saw the trailer last week. Looks interesting


So what did you think?



Acela150 said:


> I watched it Saturday night. It was very well put together. I also watched the episode of PBS Frontline on the MAX on YouTube for free that PBS posted. Although, I paid the $3 for it to keep it on my iPad forever.


I felt it was well done. It touched on all of the primary factors without getting too technical or too dramatic. I personally would have liked more details and forward looking predictive analysis but I can see why they left that out.


----------



## flitcraft

My husband, who worked at Boeing for thirty years before retirement, came away thoroughly disgusted with the post McDonnell Douglas merger impact on the corporate culture. In place of a safety-first culture of deference to engineering, they went to a 'shareholder-value' culture of reducing the expenses of design, testing, and manufacture. The engineers we knew well there have either quit or retired. When my husband joined them some years back, he told me that it was only a question of time before these policies--including outsourcing a lot of production and moving Boeing production to 'right to work' states without workforces with aerospace production experience--would end up in disaster. 

Have management learned anything from the Max debacle? It does not seem so...


----------



## Cal

Devil's Advocate said:


> So what did you think?


I said I intended to watch it, haven't got around to it yet.


----------



## jis

flitcraft said:


> Have management learned anything from the Max debacle? It does not seem so...


They appear to be charging along fearlessly in the Charleston 787 fiasco. They still cannot ship any new 787s and airlines like American are now starting to hurt even with COVID reduced traffic.

Left an entire ladder in the horizontal stab by mistake? That takes a special level of lack of attention to "details".


----------



## Cal

jis said:


> Left an entire ladder in the horizontal stab by mistake? That takes a special level of lack of attention to "details".


I'm sorry, *what?*


----------



## flitcraft

In fact there have been many cases of construction debris and tools being accidentally left in 787s, including metal debris left adjacent to wiring. The South Carolina assembly crews are being pushed hard to get planes out the door, and not surprisingly, stuff like that happens. When Qatar Airways said that they would not accept any more 787s from South Carolina, you'd have thought that might have gotten Boeing to pay more attention to quality control. Nah, who am I kidding?


----------



## west point

For years I always found Boeing Aircraft were more complicated with more maintenance bugs. MD aircraft were simpler, but quality control items were more abundant. Once on a series of trips maintenance came at every stop trying to swap wiring for the HVAC packs to get them to operate properly. I had to monitor operation with lengthy check sheet. Evidently my imput helped because 4th or 5t leg it really worked well.


----------



## Cal

Devil's Advocate said:


> So what did you think?


Just finished it, I thought it was pretty good. Definitely helped me grasp a better understanding of the incident and what happened.


----------



## Devil's Advocate




----------



## west point

An anology. putting new flight crews into a 737-max is like putting a Cesna only pilot into a twin Beech craft. Recipie for disaster.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The 1997 Merger That Paved the Way For the Boeing 737 Max Crisis


Only now, with the plane indefinitely grounded, are we beginning to see the scale of its effects.




getpocket.com




Older story that is still worth a read for those interested in how history can predict the future.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> The 1997 Merger That Paved the Way For the Boeing 737 Max Crisis
> 
> 
> Only now, with the plane indefinitely grounded, are we beginning to see the scale of its effects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> getpocket.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Older story that is still worth a read for those interested in how history can predict the future.


And then there is a slowly unfolding 787 manufacturing saga in South Carolina which has only recently been sort of resolved. Finding a ladder left in the tail plane by mistake is quite entertaining if it were not so consequentially dangerous I suppose.

It is still not clear when the 737-10 Max is going to be certified. The saga of ECAS continues.


----------



## Asher

I talked to an ex neighbor of mine who recently transferred to Alaska Airlines and had just finished training in the 737 Max. He seemed to sound like business as usual and was anxious to begin flying them On his normal routes out of Seattle.


----------



## jis

Asher said:


> I talked to an ex neighbor of mine who recently transferred to Alaska Airlines and had just finished training in the 737 Max. He seemed to sound like business as usual and was anxious to begin flying them On his normal routes out of Seattle.


The problem in certifying the MAX 10 is that it is running out of time when the window closes on the special exception which enabled certification of the currently certified MAXs with a still inadequate and poorly designed fixup to avoid the most egregous problems of the MAXs. If Boeing is unable to complete certification by that deadline and Congress does not extend it, they will need to come up with a more complete automation solution with three effective sensors, one of which will be a synthetic one as is used on many other planes. And that will take additional time.

Incidentally, we have at least one active member of AU who flies the Max for a large airline.


----------



## Asher

jis said:


> The problem in certifying the MAX 10 is that it is running out of time when the window closes on the special exception which enabled certification of the currently certified MAXs with a still inadequate and poorly designed fixup to avoid the most egregous problems of the MAXs. If Boeing is unable to complete certification by that deadline and Congress does not extend it, they will need to come up with a more complete automation solution with three effective sensors, one of which will be a synthetic one as is used on many other planes. And that will take additional time.
> 
> Incidentally, we have at least one active member of AU who flies the Max for a large airline.


You saying they need to install more gadgets. That would be another revision to the overloaded manual they have now.


----------



## jis

Asher said:


> You saying they need to install more gadgets. That would be another revision to the overloaded manual they have now.


Actually it will make the plane safer. Between a safer plane and a thinner manual I will at least tend to choose the former


----------



## west point

The low engines go all the way back to 737-500s . Bleed air was used to clear runways of FOD in front on engines. When the next 737-MAX crashes if any hint of the MCAS causing it will be curtains for the present version. 
Have no idea if possible but maybe a version of 757 wings might attach to the vary similar fuselages. That landing gear would raise the airplane 4 - 6 feet. the 757 wings have the engines where they belong.


----------



## jiml

west point said:


> When the next 737-MAX crashes


While the rest of your post makes sense, this might be a little pessimistic. (An observation from someone who just had their flight next month changed from an A321 to a MAX.)


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> While the rest of your post makes sense, this might be a little pessimistic. (An observation from someone who just had their flight next month changed from an A321 to a MAX.)


I think replacing the “when” with “if” makes that a less provocative and more dispassionate and speculatively correct statement. It is unlikely that another crash for the same reason will take place since the layer of lipstick applied to the pig is pretty thick at this point, in a manner of speaking. 

I have actually flown in a Max both before the infamous crashes and after they re-entered service, just as a matter of full disclosure. If the current fix was all that good the whole Max 10 issue would probably be non-existent.


----------



## MARC Rider

The discussion seems to suggest that even though the MAXs are flying, it's possible that whatever money Boeing saved on its shortcuts was lost due to the groundings and redesign. It would be nice to think that this might cause the bean counter management mentality to go away and the engineers to return, but I am pessimistic about that.


----------



## Asher

MARC Rider said:


> The discussion seems to suggest that even though the MAXs are flying, it's possible that whatever money Boeing saved on its shortcuts was lost due to the groundings and redesign. It would be nice to think that this might cause the bean counter management mentality to go away and the engineers to return, but I am pessimistic about that.


This has all been thoroughly discussed to the point i‘ve lost track.
Was it the bean counters at Boeing or the airlines that took the cheaper option not to pay for the training for their pilots.


----------



## Trogdor

Asher said:


> This has all been thoroughly discussed to the point i‘ve lost track.
> Was it the bean counters at Boeing or the airlines that took the cheaper option not to pay for the training for their pilots.



The contract with Southwest Airlines said that if simulator training was required, Boeing had to discount the planes by $1 million each. I recall reading somewhere (but I can’t remember where, so take this for what it’s worth) that Southwest didn’t specifically ask for that provision this time around, but it was a leftover clause from previous orders dating back to when they started flying the 737NG, and they recycled most of the terms of the sales contract.

In any event, the decision was entirely Boeing’s to falsify information to the feds to get the approval for the no-sim conversion training.


----------



## Trogdor

west point said:


> The low engines go all the way back to 737-500s . Bleed air was used to clear runways of FOD in front on engines. When the next 737-MAX crashes if any hint of the MCAS causing it will be curtains for the present version.
> Have no idea if possible but maybe a version of 757 wings might attach to the vary similar fuselages. That landing gear would raise the airplane 4 - 6 feet. the 757 wings have the engines where they belong.



The “low engines” goes back to the original 737-100. It was designed to operate from airports with minimal improvements, and the -100 and -200 are the ones with the mods to take off from gravel runways. The -500 wasn’t even the first one with the larger CFM engines, that was the -300.

The 757 is dead and done for. Ain’t coming back. The fact that it was sometimes considered a “heavy” for ATC spacing purposes should give a clue as to why sales shriveled to almost nothing as soon as the A320 and 737NG were on offer.


----------



## Asher

Trogdor said:


> The contract with Southwest Airlines said that if simulator training was required, Boeing had to discount the planes by $1 million each. I recall reading somewhere (but I can’t remember where, so take this for what it’s worth) that Southwest didn’t specifically ask for that provision this time around, but it was a leftover clause from previous orders dating back to when they started flying the 737NG, and they recycled most of the terms of the sales contract.
> 
> In any event, the decision was entirely Boeing’s to falsify information to the feds to get the approval for the no-sim conversion training.



I don't know what was acknowledged as to the actual cause of the Accidents. Has there been a corrective action response as to the root cause. Is the plane now flying configured the same, or have they added stabilizers, deleted some.
Its a complicated aircraft, I’m sure lack of training, and hell, pilot expertise is not to be overlooked.


----------



## Trogdor

Asher said:


> I don't know what was acknowledged as to the actual cause of the Accidents. Has there been a corrective action response as to the root cause. Is the plane now flying configured the same, or have they added stabilizers, deleted some.
> Its a complicated aircraft, I’m sure lack of training, and hell, expertise is not to be overlooked.



The “long-story short” version (because, in the 1.5-year grounding, _lots_ was going on with various regulators around the world) is that faulty angle-of-attack sensors caused the plane to think it was pitching up more than it actually was, potentially nearing a stall (it was not, but one of the sensors falsely indicated the AOA was high). This caused a system called MCAS to activate, which induces a nose-down trim. Pilots were not made aware that MCAS was even something that existed on this plane, since it had not existed on previous 737 versions (and the idea of minimal training meant that they were not expecting anything significantly new or different from what they were used to).

Subsequent investigations revealed that, not only had Boeing lied to the FAA about the limit of authority that MCAS would have (the system could induce more nose-down trim in a single activation than they told the FAA), they also did a lot to convince the FAA that whatever it was wasn’t important enough to require the additional training to pilots. On the technical side of things, the problems were that not only was the system susceptible to sensor failures (there are two AOA sensors, and if one gives erroneous data, there is no way for the computer to identify which data are bad and which are correct), but also that there were no pre-set limits to the number of times the system could activate (meaning, regardless of all the above, if the AOA sensor continued to indicate high, MCAS could trigger again and again and again). No alerts were given to the pilots that this would be happening, and Boeing _assumed_ pilots would identify the anomaly and treat it as a runaway stabilizer trim event. When officials looked into the practicality of pilot action seemed to indicate that manually retrimming the plane took excessive physical force (since electronic trim could not be used on account of the system causing the failure in the first place), and that pilots realistically only had a few seconds to identify and correct the problem before the situation became unrecoverable.

The MCAS-related causes were corrected. I don’t recall if they changed the limit of authority, but they did change the system so it could not activate multiple times for the same event. I know there were also some changes to the prominence of the information provided to pilots, but I don’t know exactly what wound up being required or not on that end. The main sticking points have to do with how pilots are alerted to problems on the 737 (but that’s not MCAS-specific or even MAX-specific, and is related to the age of the design and the flight computer’s ability to handle certain things), and the need for a third AOA sensor so the computer can more effectively identify which one is giving bad data.

That is the “short” version of it. The long version involved two years of investigation, every major aviation authority conducting their own certification (instead of accepting the FAA’s certification), lots of rewrite to the code to software on the plane, a test pilot being indicted for fraud (but subsequently acquitted), and what could be major changes to how any “variant” of an airplane design will need to be certified from this point forward.


----------



## railiner

Trogdor said:


> The “long-story short” version (because, in the 1.5-year grounding, _lots_ was going on with various regulators around the world) is that faulty angle-of-attack sensors caused the plane to think it was pitching up more than it actually was, potentially nearing a stall (it was not, but one of the sensors falsely indicated the AOA was high). This caused a system called MCAS to activate, which induces a nose-down trim. Pilots were not made aware that MCAS was even something that existed on this plane, since it had not existed on previous 737 versions (and the idea of minimal training meant that they were not expecting anything significantly new or different from what they were used to).
> 
> Subsequent investigations revealed that, not only had Boeing lied to the FAA about the limit of authority that MCAS would have (the system could induce more nose-down trim in a single activation than they told the FAA), they also did a lot to convince the FAA that whatever it was wasn’t important enough to require the additional training to pilots. On the technical side of things, the problems were that not only was the system susceptible to sensor failures (there are two AOA sensors, and if one gives erroneous data, there is no way for the computer to identify which data are bad and which are correct), but also that there were no pre-set limits to the number of times the system could activate (meaning, regardless of all the above, if the AOA sensor continued to indicate high, MCAS could trigger again and again and again). No alerts were given to the pilots that this would be happening, and Boeing _assumed_ pilots would identify the anomaly and treat it as a runaway stabilizer trim event. When officials looked into the practicality of pilot action seemed to indicate that manually retrimming the plane took excessive physical force (since electronic trim could not be used on account of the system causing the failure in the first place), and that pilots realistically only had a few seconds to identify and correct the problem before the situation became unrecoverable.
> 
> The MCAS-related causes were corrected. I don’t recall if they changed the limit of authority, but they did change the system so it could not activate multiple times for the same event. I know there were also some changes to the prominence of the information provided to pilots, but I don’t know exactly what wound up being required or not on that end. The main sticking points have to do with how pilots are alerted to problems on the 737 (but that’s not MCAS-specific or even MAX-specific, and is related to the age of the design and the flight computer’s ability to handle certain things), and the need for a third AOA sensor so the computer can more effectively identify which one is giving bad data.
> 
> That is the “short” version of it. The long version involved two years of investigation, every major aviation authority conducting their own certification (instead of accepting the FAA’s certification), lots of rewrite to the code to software on the plane, a test pilot being indicted for fraud (but subsequently acquitted), and what could be major changes to how any “variant” of an airplane design will need to be certified from this point forward.


Thanks...great 'capsule history' of the issue, worded so that even I can comprehend it.


----------



## 33Nicolas

Asher said:


> You saying they need to install more gadgets. That would be another revision to the overloaded manual they have now.


The problem is super convoluted and involves Boeing, the FAA, third-party companies, as well as Congress. Ultimately, Boeing is trying to match the Airbus 320x families with an over-stretched 60-year-old design that can't truly compete, at least, not in the future. I work in aviation. Most people I've spoken to in the industry, including the FAA, feel the 737 MAX should be certified as a new plane. Boeing won't do it because it would take too long, be too expensive, and it would lose sales. Yes, Boeing still needs to change and add many things in the 737 MAX, but it is twisting the FAA's hand to have it grand-fathered certified in order not to do the work it is supposed to do. They shouldn't have scraped the 797 they were working on and be patient.

It is a "safe" plane, but how willing is Boeing to be upfront about MCAS and other extra help it snuck into this Frankenstein of an airplane to its customer? How willing is it to clean up its east coast assembly plant so that we don't find the crap we have in all of its new airplanes once assembled? How will Boeing arrange flight deck warnings at a pace that can be processed by two human beings? How many human factor people will be involved in the process of redesigning the flight deck and tweaking the manual so that it can be better read? There are so many more questions the general (entertainment) media isn't asking and can't. They are by definition, generalists, not specialists. Boeing officials mislead customers, the public, and regulatory bodies, and are lobbying Congress for leniency. In the end, it is run by non-aviators who are business folks. They neglected aviation's safety first rule.

Sorry, I'm off-track here.


----------



## flitcraft

I showed my husband, a retired Boeing engineer, these posts, and he concurred that Trogdor and 33 Nicolas's posts are a succinct and accurate assessment of the situation. It's terrible what the merger caused at Boeing, and the consequences have been tragic. When shareholder value becomes the prime directive, we are all endangered.


----------



## west point

flitcraft said:


> When shareholder value becomes the prime directive, we are all endangered.


Maybe that statement should apply to the class 1 RRs ? 

What is important as a pilot is how fast did the MCAS move the trim? Cannot remember but a B-727 fast trim was about a 1 unit per second. About 2 units down and 8 - 10 units up. Take off setting about at 5 depending on Center of Gravity. Will look it up sometime.


----------



## flitcraft

west point said:


> [responding to my suggestion that Boeing's prioritizing shareholder value over everything else led to a disaster...] Maybe that statement should apply to the class 1 RRs ?


I'm willing to apply it as broadly as possible. Making short-term shareholder profits the touchstone of running a company--any company--tends to be disastrous for the public at large. A short-term mindset in general creates the functional equivalent of failing the marshmallow test--where kids were left alone with a marshmallow for a short time but told that if they refrained from eating it, they'd get two marshmallows later. And it turns out that kids that failed the test and ate the marshmallow tended to have worse outcomes in later life.

So the fact that corporations have bought into "let's eat our marshmallow right now!" as a business model does not auger well for anyone.


----------



## 33Nicolas

flitcraft said:


> I showed my husband, a retired Boeing engineer, these posts, and he concurred that Trogdor and 33 Nicolas's posts are a succinct and accurate assessment of the situation. It's terrible what the merger caused at Boeing, and the consequences have been tragic. When shareholder value becomes the prime directive, we are all endangered.


It's sad. I talk to the older generation of engineers and they shake their heads. They still know how to work and design top-notch quality, but after the merger happened, it became all about profit. In fact, see who is at the helm of that company. Ex-GE and ex-McDonald folks, the same ones who ran both companies to the ground in the 90s. Enough said. As long as a company is run by hatchet C-suites and non-industry-trained experts, and Wall Street worshipers, quality takes a back seat. Boy, I wish Lockheed would continue making airliners!


----------

