Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

Post by jorblumesea » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:18 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #195

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.

The airplane wasn’t designed in South Carolina. That issue with the unions is one manufactured by the unions and is nonsense. The union PR machine has a vested interest in pushing that narrative.

Post by spookthesunset » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:49 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #202

spookthesunset wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be kidding me. You are trying to assert that paragliding is safer than flying on a 737 MAX? Seriously? How is this even a reasonable, thought out argument to work against? I downvoted you (and a lot of the other over-the-top reactionary nonsense from armchair “aviation experts”) but I figured I’d at least explain why. Why is it every discussion on this site that involves any large company full of such ove…

Obviously 737MAX and paragliders cannot be compared directly but paragliders don't come with an inherently dangerous design that is not disclosed to the pilots. Gliders do have failure modes but that is O.K. because pilots are trained to handle these. No surprises, therefore safer than 737 MAX with MCAS. Hundreds of people died, Boeing repeatedly tried to deny the existence of the problem, the responsibility and at t…

Post by ken » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:27 AM UTC

nickjj wrote: post #50

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. It is an interesting situation for airlines. Boeing is kind of a leaky abstraction layer on flying. End users deal with the airlines, not so much Boeing directly. For example, if Amazon ships your package and it comes 4 days late because FedEx screwed up, you're going to likely think negatively of Amazon not FedEx. Because from your POV it's "Ama…

Post by marvin » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:58 AM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #105

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.

That may be what the poster meant by "well managed break up".

Post by omegant » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 7:29 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #61

omegant wrote: post #47

I bet they will stop building the 737 max and start building the 737”new model that is the max with some changes that can be retrofitted”. Like a larger stabilizer, longer frame, or maybe something easier. But something that lets them say it’s a “new” model but keeps 99% of the production line untouched and can be negotiated with the existing buyers. We’ll see how it works in some weeks.

Why?