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

171–180 of 273 posts

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#171

Post by djcapelis »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #165
djcapelis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a huge leap of naming they’ve named it the C929 with initial flights in 2025 and EIS planned for 2027. It’s cool to think they probably won’t hit those dates but pretending like a roadmap doesn’t even exist is not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929

The CR929 is vaporware: they're not even planning to begin construction of the first prototype until 2021. Also, it's "CR" for "China/Russia", since this is meant to be a joint venture between COMAC and UAC (Sukhoi). Which sounds like a great recipe to delay everything even further. Also also, even if China does pull off the airframe, they'll still rely on Western jets to power it. China's first modern turbofan, the…

Yes yes yes. But even if everything plays out like you say I don’t think you can say there’s no foreseeable future in which this happens. Please engage with the actual plans and state the technical details you know rather than saying that China has no roadmap do a thing they have a roadmap to do.

Also let’s be clear if the C919 actually works out they will be a serious competitor. The market for wide body aircraft is the one that captures all the imagination and attention but the narrow body sales are the bread and butter. They absolutely do not need to succeed in this market right away to put a big dent in the duopoly.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#172

Post by WalterBright »

henryfjordan wrote: post #91
the-pigeon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's nothing wrong with the concept. The errors are:

1. poor detail software design of the MCAS (single point of failure)

2. poor pilot training (2 crews couldn't remember how to operate the trim system)

Both are easily fixed.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#173

Post by hackerbabz »

Despegar wrote: post #67
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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 duopoly. Boeing "going under" just means that shareholders will get wiped out, not that they cease operations.

I wonder if Lockheed Martin would get back into passenger jets.

Or Bombardier leads a Canadian aerospace resurgence.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#174

Post by ajross »

generatorguy wrote: post #168
ajross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick google says Boeing is the 28th largest US company by both revenue and market cap (interesting that they line up exactly), sitting next to "pillars" like the Home Depot and PepsiCo. We'll be fine.

It takes a lot less skill and knowledge to build another retailer or soft drink company than one that designs and builds cutting edge airplanes.

Arguably, sure. But it's not an engineering argument. The point was responding to comments like "Dumping the stock will hurt pretty much every fund that invested on it, plus Dow will plunge just because of this one stock if it's getting dumped."

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#176

Post by mulmen »

caf wrote: post #117
nemetroid wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume that the reason they're shutting down is that they've run out of (feasible) places to park them. As other commenters have mentioned, the order backlog is still long, so as long as you can easily store the planes, it makes sense to keep building them.

From what I have read they would have no problem storing an almost unlimited number of them in one of the desert aircraft storage areas. It's really that while production operates without deliveries, it's a machine that turns cash into airplanes. Sooner or later, even Boeing is going to run a little low on cash.

I toured the Renton and Everett plants about a decade ago. They showed us the rail lines inside the factory next to the CNC mills. When Boeing lifts an individual stick of aluminum off the rail car they scan it and pay the supplier, before that the aluminum is still on the supplier’s books.

They have taken just-in-time delivery to an extreme to make that money->airplane pump as efficient as possible.

There are billions of dollars of raw materials in various states of becoming airplanes across the Boeing sites. It’s impressive they were able to run as long as they did without a delivery.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#177

Post by apatters »

wayoutthere wrote: post #42
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…

> The lawsuits that are surely incoming are going to pile-drive this company into the ground. Boeing is one of the most heavily subsidized companies in the world -- right alongside Airbus. They are a strategic asset to the United States far beyond their market value. The market knows this, hence why their stock is not being hammered.

Isn't it bad government policy to be strategically dependent on a single company? Boeing enjoys its dominant position in large part due to US government policy and the US military's procurement policies (in the 80s there were over 20 major defense contractors, now there are only six). It seems to me like the government has been shortsighted in letting things get to this point.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#178

Post by dgemm »

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.

They more likely started with the McDonnell Douglas merger. After which the company's top management relocated itself halfway across the country in order to be less accessible to the people actually building airplanes, opened the SC plant, and eventually built the MAX.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#179

Post by nogabebop23 »

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…

I'd like some of these raxor thin margins! They are up in every category with the exception of a small drop in utilization for both the 3rd quarter and YoY, with essentially no more employees and better fuel efficiency:

"Our 2019 third quarter financial results reflect net earnings of $119.4 million and diluted earnings per share of $1.02, representing our second most profitable third quarter and our overall third best quarterly performance in our 23-year history."

Also according to their own report their fleet numbers 180 airplanes.

FInally:

"We continue to adjust our flight schedule through the end of 2019 as a result of the ongoing closure of Canadian airspace forthe Boeing MAX series aircraft impacting our fleet. Our contingency planning and proactive schedule adjustments enable us to reduce last minute flight cancellations and unexpected travel disruptions, however, certain routes have been temporarily suspended as a result of aircraft inventory shortages."

Wanna bet they suspended certain routes that were not very profitable like interior, non-hub routes?

https://www.westjet.com/assets/wj-web/documents/en/investorM...

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#180

Post by nogabebop23 »

hackerbabz wrote: post #173
Despegar wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 duopoly. Boeing "going under" just means that shareholders will get wiped out, not that they cease operations.

I wonder if Lockheed Martin would get back into passenger jets. Or Bombardier leads a Canadian aerospace resurgence.

>> Bombardier leads a Canadian aerospace resurgence.

Do we have enough tax dollars to finance such an event

Post reply on HN