Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#231

Post by jmkni » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 11:57 AM UTC

ijidak wrote: post #213

Flying already evokes an illogical visceral fear in most humans. (Listen to the screams, and white knuckled grasps, during strong turbulence.) The 737 Max is likely dead, forever, for passenger traffic. There's just too much for every stakeholder, but Boeing, to lose. Most likely Boeing will need state help (like the auto company bailout) while it transitions to some new post-737-Max reality. The 737 Max rise and fal…

Flying 100% scares the shit out of me. I know it's illogical, I know how safe it is etc, but when I'm on a plane all I just can't relax at all.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#232

Post by tempguy9999 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 12:00 PM UTC

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…

> indemnified up the wazoo

Really? Are you sure boeing is, given the cost-savings that not being insured would make (I mean the mgmt is clearly penny-pinchingly stupid enough).

But even if boeing is insured, you can bet your butt the insurers will have an explicit or implicit clause that voids the insurance on 'reasonable grounds', and they will argue (correctly) that knowingly producing flawed products (when it became evident at least) matches that getout perfectly.

Even if they lose the insurers will basically move into a courtroom, sleeping bags and all, to tie things up forever. It's cheaper than paying out.

My opinion anyway.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#233

Post by igravious » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 12:24 PM UTC

igravious wrote: post #226

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Something I'd like to point out here, not taking away from any of your points. If you think of Airbus as a multi-national consortium (as it rightly is: French, British, etc.) then a Chinese/Russian hook-up is not totally daft. You could make the same argument about "a great recipe to delay everything even further" about Airbus versus Boeing and yet Airbus appears to be doing okay. Don't we think competition is good?…

Replying to myself. Airbus is a consortium of four countries: France, UK, Germany, Spain – started in the 60's. Basically China/Russia are 50 or 60 years behind!

Here's a recent doc about the most technologically advanced aircraft they've manufactured, the A350: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yutzg2NLwcU “Giant Aircraft: Manufacturing an Airbus A350 | Mega Manufacturing | Free Documentary”

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#234

Post by yskchu » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 12:39 PM UTC

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…

There's no way Boeing will be going "under" just because 1 model of their planes is impacted

737 MAX is impacted but there's still 737 NG which doesn't have these issues

And then there's 747, 767, 777, 787 which are still under production

This is just the commercial plane side of the business, there's the huge defence side as well

Finally, Boeing has been playing this game a long time, very well connected in gov and congress, and its business impact many states and employees. Boeing is basically too big (and too well connected) to fail; even in the worst possible case, they'll probably get a bailout.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#235

Post by stevehawk » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 12:51 PM UTC

yskchu wrote: post #234

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…

There's no way Boeing will be going "under" just because 1 model of their planes is impacted 737 MAX is impacted but there's still 737 NG which doesn't have these issues And then there's 747, 767, 777, 787 which are still under production This is just the commercial plane side of the business, there's the huge defence side as well Finally, Boeing has been playing this game a long time, very well connected in gov and…

While I agree with you, I just want to point out that the 747 as an airliner is no longer made and airlines would not likely go back to it. Many are still flying them but they are being phased out for financial reasons. Their manufacturing continues as a cargo plane though. Passenger wise, the last one was made in 2017. https://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/companies/the-last-747...

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#236

Post by hudibras » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 12:58 PM UTC

nogabebop23 wrote: post #179

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 be…

A good rule of thumb is to never believe it when a company or industry says they have razor-thin margins.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#237

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 1:02 PM UTC

hudibras wrote: post #236

nogabebop23 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

A good rule of thumb is to never believe it when a company or industry says they have razor-thin margins.

That works at least until their cash flow seizes up and they need a huge bail out. The car industry is a good example of a margin thin one.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#238

Post by danmaz74 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 1:28 PM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #198

djcapelis wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. That's a pretty large if. Head west a bit to Russia and see how they're doing in the international market. The Sukhoi SuperJet is, by most accounts, a great plane. Sukhoi managed to sell to…

The difference here is that China has a rich (and growing) internal market.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#239

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 1:53 PM UTC

igravious wrote: post #226

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Something I'd like to point out here, not taking away from any of your points. If you think of Airbus as a multi-national consortium (as it rightly is: French, British, etc.) then a Chinese/Russian hook-up is not totally daft. You could make the same argument about "a great recipe to delay everything even further" about Airbus versus Boeing and yet Airbus appears to be doing okay. Don't we think competition is good?…

I didn't say any of that. My point is simply that building large modern passenger aircraft is Hard with a capital H, and while I wish them luck, China still has a long, long way to go.

And FWIW, if you read up on Airbus's history, you'll see that their unusual structure and resulting internal politics have caused a lot of pain over the years (eg. the A380 superjumbo program). Ironically enough, Boeing got a taste of this too when they decided to outsource all the things when building the 787, which consequently went way over budget.

Re: Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January

#240

Post by tachion » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 1:54 PM UTC

_ph_ wrote: post #212

adrr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone did the stats around the max 8. 300 lives lost in 3 years of operation and 400 planes in the sky. It is actually quite dangerous to fly and much more dangerous than driving when you compare by travel time and not distance. In comparison, A320 Neo and 787 have no hull losses and there's more of those planes in the sky than the maxes. 787s have been flying for almost 10 years.

Both losses were caused by the same faulty system, MCAS. I don't understand how can one make predictions about the safety of the plane with a fixed MCAS from the MCAS related crashes.

Because it's safer thing to do, when people lives are at risk. If it would be having some milk spilled or popcorn burnt, no one would try to make those overly precautious predictions. Also, because the plane has a bad track record, so it brought the scrutiny on itself.