Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 273 posts

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#91

Post by henryfjordan »

the-pigeon wrote: post #21
WalterBright wrote: post #4

The FAA needs to stop hemming and hawing, being unclear about what they need, put in some overtime and get things done.

Ban the aircraft. Criminally charge everyone involved in suppressing it's serious issues and forcing it through approval. Figure out how their processes become vulnerable to corruption and attempt to change them. The problem is of course the FAA doesn't want to hurt Boeing or the industry over this. But that strongly conflicts with their job. The hope at this point seems to be to drag it out until people forget.

Don't forget that the FAA also failed here too. The plane should never have gotten past the concept stage. They were taking Boeing's word that everything was going to be fine, and it wasn't. The FAA shares as much blame as Boeing for this fiasco.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#92

Post by nrb »

calcifer wrote: post #33
jlmorton wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sincerely doubt many people will remember anything about this five years from now. There have been dozens of crashes involving various models of the 737 series, and the vast majority of the population could not name a single incident. As soon as this is out of the news cycle, everyone will forget.

> dozens of crashes That's wrong by an order of magnitude. 737 series had a total of 478 incidents, 213 of which is resulted in hull loss [1]. [1] https://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Boeing-737-series...

To be fair, the vast majority of those are not "crashes" in the sense that the parent post describes.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#93

Post by keyle »

Aloha wrote: post #55
keyle wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"too big to fail" they said. "whatever it takes they will fix it". I'm personally glad this model is getting shelved. You'd just have a bad taste flying in one of those regardless of tweaked the design is or how good the software is going to be. I'm also glad this is happening because it's a win for humanity and a loss for bureaucracy. I have full confidence that the next model will be rock solid and much better over…

The next model is 10 years and north of a billion dollars away.

The next model would be drawn up already. They knew where it went wrong.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#94

Post by mark-r »

acqq wrote: post #64

Non paywall version on cnbc.com: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/boeing-will-suspend-737-max-... Boeing's official statement: https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-12-16-Boeing-Statement-Reg... The relevant part: "Safely returning the 737 MAX to service is our top priority. We know that the process of approving the 737 MAX's return to service, and of determining appropriate training requirements, must be extraordinarily…

Hitting the pause button doesn't mean the stop button suddenly disappeared.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#95

Post by bumby »

selimthegrim wrote: post #84
ryanisnan wrote: post #19

I'm surprised that the market hasn't reacted more negatively towards Boeing regarding the Max 8 disaster. Airlines operate on razor-thin margins (~1 to 2%), and several users of the Max 8 have had significant portions of their fleet out of service as a result. Westjet [1], for example runs 124 planes currently. 13 of which are the Max 8. Over 10% of their fleet. Southwest Airlines [2], for example, runs 748 planes, 3…

SWA and AA are morally responsible for some of these design choices. I’m sure they would come up in any suit vs Boeing

Is this regarding the airline delivery pressure that influenced schedule or some other mechanism?

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#96

Post by starfallg »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36
ryanisnan wrote: post #19

I'm surprised that the market hasn't reacted more negatively towards Boeing regarding the Max 8 disaster. Airlines operate on razor-thin margins (~1 to 2%), and several users of the Max 8 have had significant portions of their fleet out of service as a result. Westjet [1], for example runs 124 planes currently. 13 of which are the Max 8. Over 10% of their fleet. Southwest Airlines [2], for example, runs 748 planes, 3…

> lawsuits that are surely incoming are going to pile-drive this company into the ground Legally, everyone is indemnified up the wazoo. Strategically, airlines are in a worse position if Boeing goes under. Not only do they lose the planes on order. They also lose their service and replacement-parts provider. The survivors would, in the medium-term, face an Airbus monopoly and, in the long-term, a Chinese-European duo…

> Chinese-European duopoly

Unlikely. The Chinese is currently competing with Embraer (E-Jet E2) and Bombardier (C-series/A22x) with the Comac C919 which has problems with production. Since its first flight in 2017, there has only been 5 built.

Tech transfers has also slowed to trickle since the HSR fiasco with foreign rail technology absorbed and then re-exported. Nobody trusts the Chinese to play fair.

What's more likely if Boeing run into difficulties from the MAX damages is that it will restructure under Chapter 11 and re-emerge with the existing shareholders wiped out. This may involve a breakup, with the defence business separating from the commercial airliner business, but that's also unlikely due to how aerospace companies are run these days.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#97

Post by hinkley »

bitxbit wrote: post #86

Lost in all of this discussion is the fact that Boeing problems began with South Carolina. The fact that politics played a big role in opening that plant should not be ignored. MAX wasn’t just designed poorly, the organization process within Boeing was already failing. It’s a corporate culture failure.

South Carolina and the 787 assembly process both looked like pretty poorly concealed union busting tactics to me.

First you made a plane that doesn't require the massive gantry cranes to construct. Smaller portable equipment does a lot of the work. You can build new, cheaper facilities. Then you move things more or less to the opposite corner of the country, but closer to the new headquarters.

Yeah, not suspicious at all.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#98

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

ryanisnan wrote: post #19

I'm surprised that the market hasn't reacted more negatively towards Boeing regarding the Max 8 disaster. Airlines operate on razor-thin margins (~1 to 2%), and several users of the Max 8 have had significant portions of their fleet out of service as a result. Westjet [1], for example runs 124 planes currently. 13 of which are the Max 8. Over 10% of their fleet. Southwest Airlines [2], for example, runs 748 planes, 3…

Isn’t the problem that all of our mutual funds just keep buying Boeing stock no matter what bad things happen?

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#99

Post by natch »

tyingq wrote: post #81
clintonb wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the Max doesn't return to service or even if its grounding is prolonged this represents an existential threat to the likes of Southwest as part of the way they maintain their low margins is by having a fleet with one and only one type rating. The 737 MAX has the same rating as every 737 that Southwest and others fly. Part of the MCAS controversy stems from the fact that Boeing did not discuss it to avoid needing…

They are saying that if the MAX isn't available, Southwest will have to consider buying a completely different aircraft.

Good! I like Southwest and would hate to have them off the table as an option for some of my travel.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#100

Post by acqq »

kayfox wrote: post #48
rst wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were gambling on a quick fix that would be acceptable to regulators, and which could be easily retrofit to existing aircraft, including the ones still rolling off the production line. Pausing production has cost -- and if the planes were recertified by now, the cost of storing finished planes in parking lots is probably quite a bit less.

I think they were gambling on the delay being a reasonable amount of time, say 6 months. Now the FAA has had the final updated software for something like a month and a half and just started certification testing. This smacks of some incompetence on behalf of the FAA, since if they had a clear idea of what the requirements were for re-certification, they would also have a clear idea of how long it should take, and th…

> Now the FAA has had the final updated software for something like a month and a half and just started certification testing. This smacks of some incompetence on behalf of the FAA

Up to the second accident FAA left much of the certification process up to Boeing(!) alone. No wonder that they discovered now that they need more time:

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/12/11/faa-...

They also demonstrated to the whole world that they aren't serious about safety after the rest of the world grounded the planes but they still just repeated whatever Boeing told them.

The current weakness of FAA is of Boeing's making:

https://www.economist.com/business/2019/03/23/regulatory-cap...

"Since 2001 [Boeing] has lobbied vigorously to perform more of its own safety tests. In 2005 the FAA began to allow Boeing to do more self-certification. “It’s like putting children in charge of the sweet shop,” says a former Boeing adviser. An investigation by the transportation department in 2012 found that the FAA had not done enough to “hold Boeing accountable”. It quoted FAA employees who had reported retaliation for speaking up about problems with Boeing’s previous designs."

Post reply on HN