Boeing 737 Max

[RiverDog]

I probably said or did as many insensitive things at 21 (I’m 53 now), so yeah I get it. He definitely sounded like the ‘get off my lawn’ type and then some. We all eventually become that guy

He was a devout Catholic with 7 kids and 20 years difference between the oldest and youngest, so I suppose we can excuse some of his excesses.

People will lose their jobs simply because the company made a huge miscalculation on the Max program by shady practices that killed hundreds of people in the name of corporate greed - all legal of course. They simply can’t afford to keep making planes they can’t deliver and therefore get paid for. I still think the Max will not get the-certified without a major re-design beyond software, and/or scrap it entirely. Ironically, they already had a better airframe in the discontinued 757, which has a higher landing gear that can accommodated the larger engines without having to move their location on the wings. I’m sure it would have cost more to redesign the wings, update the avionics, get re-certified, and the-train pilots. But it would have been a more sound design for safety sake. That’s capitalism when you don’t have a higher mission than pleasing the stock price.

I'm not going to agree that it was all "in the name of corporate greed". Obviously there was a profit motive at work, particularly at the higher levels of the company, but there's a lot of blame to spread around. They had engineers that, in the absence of proper regulatory oversight, lost sight of the human nature of their work. Planes became personal toys, the object of engineering challenges seeking a resolution within a given set of constraints. I would be very surprised if anyone on the board told them not to disclose their solutions to the engineering challenges to the airlines and individual pilots or that it was OK for them to rely on critical data from a single sensor. Those decision almost certainly were made at a level below the BOD and was not profit driven.

I've seen similar things happen in my former line of work, where engineers lose sight of the overall objective and things like safety and quality get overlooked. One of the things that happens is that they try to assign numerical values to subjective criteria like quality and safety. They don't ask themselves the proper "what would happen if" questions.

[RiverDog]

A follow-up comment to the previous post. I'm a space race junkie, and I'm reminded of the Apollo 1 fire in 1967 that killed 3 astronauts on the launch pad. There was absolutely no profit motive involved. To the contrary, they had virtually unlimited funding. What killed those astronauts was an insatiable desire to beat the Russians to the moon and to fulfil a dead President's pledge to do it before the end of the decade. They took a lot of short cuts in order to meet time constraints due to their patriotic fervor. It wasn't an intentional act of theirs to put those men's lives at risk. They were decent, hard working people that fell prey to very human emotions. They lost sight of the consequences of engineering failures, the "what would happen if" questions they should have been asking themselves.

[I-5]

I agree with pretty much everything you say, EXCEPT that many engineers did raise flags but were ignored by their superiors. Engineers get paid to solve particular problems with their expertise and skil, but they don’t get paid to make decisions that affect production. And they did raise flags.

[RiverDog]

I agree with pretty much everything you say, EXCEPT that many engineers did raise flags but were ignored by their superiors. Engineers get paid to solve particular problems with their expertise and skil, but they don’t get paid to make decisions that affect production. And they did raise flags.

Agreed. But my point was that the sole motivation was very likely not all profit orientated. Interdepartmental competition, personal assurances, individual career objectives, all could have factored into those managers' decisions to ignore the flags. I got the impression that you were trying to attribute everything to corporate greed when in most cases its a variety of human motivations that enter into the equation that results in the perfect storm, which is why you see the exact same thing happen with non profit organizations like government agencies (NASA, Bureau of Reclamation, etc.)

[Hawktawk]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ase-on-max
Actually it looks like testers hid a lot of stuff too. It's the culture there top to bottom. Someone should do some time.

[I-5]

I said it a few months ago before the latest headlines, and I think it's even stronger now: The Max will never fly again. it's really a shame, since I'm sure it's 'mostly' a fine airplane, but I don't see anyway they can get this certified again with the lost confidence and the continuing bad news around the development of the design.

I disagree with Riv about the bureaucratic problems being the main problem, though...yes, there are problems with human nature and bureaucracy, but they didn't drive this crisis IMO. The biggest and most influential problem is in the Board of Directors that see the company PRIMARILY as a for profit company that must tolerate regulations instead of the original company whose main goal was to move people from point A to point B the fastest and safest way possible. That got lost at some point, and here we are.

Lots of good people are going to suffer in their livelihood because of Boeing Brass' shortsightedness. Not to mention the innocent people who died in the 2 preventable crashes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/boeing-737-max-supplier-spirit-aerosystems-to-cut-2800-jobs.html

[Aseahawkfan]

Boeing will likely rename it for marketing reasons even if they use a similar plane. 737 Max has a bad name attached to it. Hard to market a plane with so much bad press. Best to change the name and start a new legacy.

[I-5]

The public is a bit savvier than falling for a name change I think. The media won't let them forget either. The problem is the airframe, which was never meant for big engines...it's already been updated with bigger and bigger engines over the years, but there is a limit to that, so they tried putting the engine partly OVER the wing for the Max...hence, the need for MCAS to compensate. Terrible idea.

Hindsight being 20/20, Boeing already had the right airframe in the higher off the ground 757, which my aeronautical engineer friends say (and one can easily see for themselves) could easily handle the larger engines that Boeing wanted. However, since the 757 program was already discontinued, it would require re-certification, and they would have had to spend millions to re-design the cockpit updates, not to mention new simulators and more training. All these factors made the 757 idea anathema to the Boeing board of directors, so there's no way they were going to go there. But they will end up losing a LOT more money and possibly the entire company over this.

[RiverDog]

I said it a few months ago before the latest headlines, and I think it's even stronger now: The Max will never fly again. it's really a shame, since I'm sure it's 'mostly' a fine airplane, but I don't see anyway they can get this certified again with the lost confidence and the continuing bad news around the development of the design.

I disagree with Riv about the bureaucratic problems being the main problem, though...yes, there are problems with human nature and bureaucracy, but they didn't drive this crisis IMO. The biggest and most influential problem is in the Board of Directors that see the company PRIMARILY as a for profit company that must tolerate regulations instead of the original company whose main goal was to move people from point A to point B the fastest and safest way possible. That got lost at some point, and here we are.

Lots of good people are going to suffer in their livelihood because of Boeing Brass' shortsightedness. Not to mention the innocent people who died in the 2 preventable crashes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/boeing-737-max-supplier-spirit-aerosystems-to-cut-2800-jobs.html

I didn't say that bureaucratic problems were the main issue. The FAA is a major component in the equation, another being Boeing's status of having a monopoly on domestic airline production in the United States. The combination of the two led to a tail-wagging-the-dog situation.

They may have to completely re-design the plane and use a different style of engine that eliminates the need for the MCAS system, but I'm not sure how viable that is. There's around 2500 of them that are currently in service, not counting those in inventory. It's not like recalling a car for a problem with the brakes. And yes, they'll obviously have to go with a different name in order to reflect those changes, even if there's no structural changes with the plane.

And there's more wrong with the culture at Boeing than the brass, although it does start with them. Some of those emails and text messages suggests that there's problems all up and down the food chain.

[RiverDog]

Hindsight being 20/20, Boeing already had the right airframe in the higher off the ground 757, which my aeronautical engineer friends say (and one can easily see for themselves) could easily handle the larger engines that Boeing wanted. However, since the 757 program was already discontinued, it would require re-certification, and they would have had to spend millions to re-design the cockpit updates, not to mention new simulators and more training. All these factors made the 757 idea anathema to the Boeing board of directors, so there's no way they were going to go there. But they will end up losing a LOT more money and possibly the entire company over this.

I hadn't heard that, but it makes sense. Did the idea of restarting the 757 program ever reach the Board of Directors in the form of a proposal?

[I-5]

There are about 350 Max planes that have entered operations so far with about 50 carriers, so it’s not a huge amount yet. The financial losses however, are huge because of planned routes that airlines had to cancel due to the grounding the past year (there are about 5000 Max total ordered). Then there’s the hundreds of brand new Maxes sitting on lots that aren’t paid for.

There’s no way to ‘fix’ these planes outside of redoing the software, and that’s scary. The wings were totally designed to integrate with the too big engines, so it’s not like other jets where you can remove the engine from the pylon. Its a total disaster. It’s alarming to realize how much your life depends on someone writing good code when you fly. The good news with planes is that they have multiple levels of redundancy in case something fails...in almost every case except when the pilots weren’t even aware they had an MCAS issue.

As for the 757, i dont have any Links to share, just have heard engineer friends talk about it.

[I-5]

Found this article on the 757 vs 737 Max, written in 2016, 2 years before the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes. The author was somewhat prophetic:

https://amp.businessinsider.com/boeing-757-pilot-reveals-737-not-replacement-2016-11

[RiverDog]

There are about 350 Max planes that have entered operations so far with about 50 carriers, so it’s not a huge amount yet. The financial losses however, are huge because of planned routes that airlines had to cancel due to the grounding the past year (there are about 5000 Max total ordered). Then there’s the hundreds of brand new Maxes sitting on lots that aren’t paid for.

There’s no way to ‘fix’ these planes outside of redoing the software, and that’s scary. The wings were totally designed to integrate with the too big engines, so it’s not like other jets where you can remove the engine from the pylon. Its a total disaster. It’s alarming to realize how much your life depends on someone writing good code when you fly. The good news with planes is that they have multiple levels of redundancy in case something fails...in almost every case except when the pilots weren’t even aware they had an MCAS issue.

As for the 757, i dont have any Links to share, just have heard engineer friends talk about it.

I thought that there were more MAX's in service, but I'm obviously mistaken.

It will be interesting to see how Boeing wiggles out of this. Under normal conditions, a decision like the MAX could have brought down a company, even a large one like Boeing. But as I've stated, they have a monopoly on domestic airline production in the US and they're a major defense contractor that would be difficult if not impossible to replace. The government is faced with a dilemma as well, not wanting to hamstring Boeing too much yet not coming down so hard on them that they can't recover.

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing it.

[I-5]

Boeing may have a monopoly in N. America, but both Delta and American, the two largest US carriers, use a wide variety of Airbus equipment. And they are smart to diversify.

I think because of the huge numbers involved, the 737 Max debacle could indeed bring down a giant like Boeing. Nothing in their history has any precedent for something like this total loss of confidence, and it if they're not careful, it can contaminate their whole culture. At the very least, I can see some type of restructuring come out of this, both with the FAA and Boeing. Both are responsible for this mess.

[RiverDog]

Boeing may have a monopoly in N. America, but both Delta and American, the two largest US carriers, use a wide variety of Airbus equipment. And they are smart to diversify.

It's not just Boeing's monopoly that's a problem, it's that the FAA doesn't have any other domestic commercial manufacturer to regulate outside of Boeing. They don't have any other experiences to weigh when passing judgement on Boeing's procedures and processes, nothing to compare them with. It inevitably becomes a fox guarding the chicken coop situation, with employees and inspectors drinking from the same bottle and sleeping with the same women. It's an unhealthy relationship from a regulatory perspective.

I think because of the huge numbers involved, the 737 Max debacle could indeed bring down a giant like Boeing. Nothing in their history has any precedent for something like this total loss of confidence, and it if they're not careful, it can contaminate their whole culture. At the very least, I can see some type of restructuring come out of this, both with the FAA and Boeing. Both are responsible for this mess.

In a lot of respects, this is new ground. There is no other company, certainly no American company, to step up and fill the void if Boeing were to fail, and with 150,000 mostly high paying jobs at stake not to mention all the suppliers involved, it's going to put some pressure on the government to not let them fail. I don't know if there's a situation like this in American business history.

Agree completely with your last sentence. Although I would probably assign a higher percentage to Boeing, like 60/40 or 70/30, they're both responsible for this mess.

[Aseahawkfan]

In a lot of respects, this is new ground. There is no other company, certainly no American company, to step up and fill the void if Boeing were to fail, and with 150,000 mostly high paying jobs at stake not to mention all the suppliers involved, it's going to put some pressure on the government to not let them fail. I don't know if there's a situation like this in American business history.

Agree completely with your last sentence. Although I would probably assign a higher percentage to Boeing, like 60/40 or 70/30, they're both responsible for this mess.

Boeing can't fail. They are irreplaceable as a U.S. company. Boeing failing would be terrible for the U.S. economy and aerospace industry.

[I-5]

Boeing won't fail for all the reasons we've stated. I think they will undergo a major change in company structure. They can't simply re-brand the 737 Max, they will need to go all the way to the drawing board with a brand new design, go back to a different fuselage (757), or at least redesign the wings with a different engine (unlikely). The software isn't the solution.

[RiverDog]

Boeing can't fail. They are irreplaceable as a U.S. company. Boeing failing would be terrible for the U.S. economy and aerospace industry.

Boeing won't fail for all the reasons we've stated. I think they will undergo a major change in company structure. They can't simply re-brand the 737 Max, they will need to go all the way to the drawing board with a brand new design, go back to a different fuselage (757), or at least redesign the wings with a different engine (unlikely). The software isn't the solution.

Agreed with both comments. I wish there was something we could do to Boeing to split up their monopoly and encourage more competition. They're the 500 lb gorilla in their business, and they know it. It's a terrible situation for this country to be in, ie all of our eggs in one basket.

[I-5]

I wish there was something we could do to Boeing to split up their monopoly and encourage more competition.

There used to be, with Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, but I don't see that ever happening again. It would cost too much now to enter the market and the risk would be very high. If any other develops medium to large jetliners, it's likely to be China (which I would never fly on if you paid me). The competition now is between manufacturers of smaller jets like Embraer (Brazil) and Bombardier (Canada), so Boeing and Airbus are jockeying for those crucial partnerships.

[RiverDog]

There used to be, with Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, but I don't see that ever happening again. It would cost too much now to enter the market and the risk would be very high. If any other develops medium to large jetliners, it's likely to be China (which I would never fly on if you paid me). The competition now is between manufacturers of smaller jets like Embraer (Brazil) and Bombardier (Canada), so Boeing and Airbus are jockeying for those crucial partnerships.

Yup. Capitalism and the regulatory process only works when there's true competition. That's why I said earlier that you could trace the genesis of this problem back to their merger with MD.

Because of the very similar technologies between large commercial airliners and military planes, along with their role in other aspects of being a supplier of military hardware, it is a matter of national defense not to let Boeing fail. If it were any other situation, I'd say screw it, let them stew in their own gravy.