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

Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 637 posts

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#611

Post by vkou »

sjg007 wrote: post #604
vkou wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you expect to take a haircut on your pension, it's still a good idea to diversify your retirement investments, for the same reason that you should invest into both bonds, and stocks. If you retire during a recession, your planned 20 years of 401K runway may not last you more than 12. Or you might end up living longer than 20 years. Or both. With a guaranteed payments pension, you will continue receiving benef…

A 401k should mostly be bonds and cash equivalents when you retire.

And if the recession hit a few years before you retire, your portfolio will never get a chance to recover from that hit. Your 20 years of runway becomes 12.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#612

Post by DreamScatter »

spease wrote: post #434
vntx wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they put the type of guys who like to cut costs at the expense of everything else, including safety measures in charge? I feel safer too!

Is it reasonable to think they may have done this because they expect to declare bankruptcy and go through restructuring?

Boeing 737 is only a small portion of their total business, don't think they bankrupt.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#613

Post by rossdavidh »

totalZero wrote: post #607
rossdavidh wrote: post #488

So, realistically, what will happen? Not what _should_ happen, but what will actually happen? 1) the current board will continue 2) European (and other) regulators will not be impressed 3) Boeing sales vs. Airbus will not return to their previous levels for years, if ever; a goodly percentage of international travel will be locked up for Airbus 4) Boeing will also face more competition from SpaceX (and perhaps others…

Not even close. There are only two companies in the world that can do what Boeing and Airbus do. The real question is, why is BA stock still trading above 330? Why are big money guys so confident about the company's future?

If you are not thinking on a 10-year timespan, but more of a 10-month, 10-day, or 10-minute timespan, it will take a while before long-term doom is reflected in the price. Even in the late 1970's, when GM's fate was more or less sealed, their price was holding up reasonably well. http://omurtlak69.blogspot.com/2012/01/general-motors-stock-...

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#614

Post by clairity »

afjl wrote: post #608
clairity wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I've banked at Wells Fargo since 2013, and I intend to close my 2 WF accounts and open up new ones at Chase soon." you're just moving from one crappy, uncaring bank to another (i've banked at both in the past). a credit union or local/regional bank will treat you like a real human rather than a necessary inconvenience: https://www.bankrate.com/banking/reviews/

Frankly, I'm okay with an uncaring bank. I would give more weight to the bank's accessibility (i.e. locations, ATMs, international charge fees, etc) and consistency/quality of service (app usability/downtime, good 1800 customer service).

you really only need one branch somewhere near you to do the very occasional in-bank stuff. mobile apps can be used for deposits and any atm can be used for cash (use non-big-bank atms to withdraw without fee). the atm network for credit unions is comparable to a big bank.

you don't get good customer service (via phone or otherwise) at a big bank, as they see it as a cost center to be minimized. smaller banks use good service as a differentiator/product enhancement.

but yes, international charges can vary a bit.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#615

Post by sjg007 »

vkou wrote: post #611
sjg007 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 401k should mostly be bonds and cash equivalents when you retire.

And if the recession hit a few years before you retire, your portfolio will never get a chance to recover from that hit. Your 20 years of runway becomes 12.

I mean you can move the goal posts here... yes a 401k is risky.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#616

Post by WalterBright »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #597
WalterBright wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the Ethiopian crew found out: it can't. Whatever you read about that is simply wrong. (I've seen a LOT of misinformation in popular print about this.) You're correct that the hand cranks were unusable. But the electric thumb switches WERE usable and were pointed out in the AD. Note that the crews of BOTH the LA and EA crashes had already used the thumb switches to restore normal trim, the LA crew did so 25 times…

Whatever you read about that is simply wrong. (I've seen a LOT of misinformation in popular print about this.) You're correct that the hand cranks were unusable. But the electric thumb switches WERE usable and were pointed out in the AD. And if you enable the electric trim switches on a 737 MAX you get MCAS activation. MCAS, of course, trims faster than the switches. Using the electric switches is fighting a losing b…

> And if you enable the electric trim switches on a 737 MAX you get MCAS activation.

The electric trim switches override MCAS. That is why the steps are:

1. use the electric trim switches to set the trim to normal

2. cut off the electric trim

That's all there is to it.

> MCAS presented counter to how Boeing defines runaway trim.

That's simply false. (And runaway trim does not need definition, Boeing does not define it.)

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#617

Post by WalterBright »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #595
WalterBright wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MCAS activation is not, and was not, a runaway stabilizer situation. It presented as a runaway stab trim. Repeatedly coming on and driving the nose down is runaway trim. No two ways about it. And the usual, standard, runaway trim procedure would stop it. > they had a third set of eyes that could spend time going through reams of documentation From my reading of that incident, nothing of the sort happened. The 3rd p…

It presented as a runaway stab trim. Repeatedly coming on and driving the nose down is runaway trim. No two ways about it. No, it didn't. From the latest QRH: Condition: Uncommanded stabilizer trim movement occurs continuously. Well that's not met as MCAS doesn't run continuously. By design it stops periodically. Put it another way. You're arguing semantics while the 737 MAX remains a smoldering pile of aluminum and…

> You're arguing semantics

Trying to argue that the trim system erratically coming on and driving the nose down is not "runaway trim" is arguing semantics. Runaway trim is when the trim is doing something dangerous without command from the pilot.

If the cockpit voice recorder reveals them discussing the definition of "runaway trim" and deciding that the instructions Boeing provided didn't apply, I'd be surprised and interested.

> MCAS also stops after the trim switches are hit.

Exactly, the trim switches override the MCAS. That's why you use the trim switches to set it back to normal, then hit the cutoff switches. That's what the Emergency Airworthiness Directive says to do.

> Reread the report.

I haven't read that anywhere. I don't know what report that is. Reference, please.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#618

Post by WalterBright »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #598
WalterBright wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can understand if the AD was intended as a short term fix but I would question the rationale if it were considered a long term solution It was not, Boeing at the time was working on a solution. Regardless, however, the pilots MUST know how to deal with runaway trim. This was true before MCAS, and is true after. It was true on the 757 (I spend 3 years working on the design of the 757 stab trim system). The cutoff…

It is not acceptable that pilots were unaware of the cutoff switches. It is unacceptable that MAX pilots did not read, understand, and remember the Airworthiness Directive sent to all MAX crews. The Ethiopian crew tried the cutout switches and found they couldn't trim the airplane with the hand cranks because Boeing lied. How is that a pilot training issue? But there were other contributing factors in the crashes tha…

> The Ethiopian crew tried the cutout switches and found they couldn't trim the airplane with the hand cranks because Boeing lied. How is that a pilot training issue?

The Emergency Airworthiness Directive to all MAX crews says:

"Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used before and after the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved to CUTOUT."

https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/B737-MA...

> A Boeing employee

I left Boeing about 40 years ago.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#619

Post by Gibbon1 »

WalterBright wrote: post #617
inferiorhuman wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It presented as a runaway stab trim. Repeatedly coming on and driving the nose down is runaway trim. No two ways about it. No, it didn't. From the latest QRH: Condition: Uncommanded stabilizer trim movement occurs continuously. Well that's not met as MCAS doesn't run continuously. By design it stops periodically. Put it another way. You're arguing semantics while the 737 MAX remains a smoldering pile of aluminum and…

> You're arguing semantics Trying to argue that the trim system erratically coming on and driving the nose down is not "runaway trim" is arguing semantics. Runaway trim is when the trim is doing something dangerous without command from the pilot. If the cockpit voice recorder reveals them discussing the definition of "runaway trim" and deciding that the instructions Boeing provided didn't apply, I'd be surprised and…

> Exactly, the trim switches override the MCAS. That's why you use the trim switches to set it back to normal, then hit the cutoff switches.

On the 737 Max there is no way to disable the MCAS without also disabling the electric trim.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#620

Post by inferiorhuman »

WalterBright wrote: post #618
inferiorhuman wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not acceptable that pilots were unaware of the cutoff switches. It is unacceptable that MAX pilots did not read, understand, and remember the Airworthiness Directive sent to all MAX crews. The Ethiopian crew tried the cutout switches and found they couldn't trim the airplane with the hand cranks because Boeing lied. How is that a pilot training issue? But there were other contributing factors in the crashes tha…

> The Ethiopian crew tried the cutout switches and found they couldn't trim the airplane with the hand cranks because Boeing lied. How is that a pilot training issue? The Emergency Airworthiness Directive to all MAX crews says: "Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before…

Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used before and after the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved to CUTOUT.

If the graphs are to be believed neither the electric commands nor hand crank were able to move the stabilizer. Again, how is that a pilot training issue?

Post reply on HN