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

Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 173 posts

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#131

Post by s_dev »

ogogmad wrote: post #118

Ryanair is happy to buy the Boeing 737-MAX planes that other airlines are thinking of ditching: https://skift.com/2024/01/29/ryanair-ceo-says-uniteds-boeing... Interestingly, Airbus's orders are filled up to 2030. I suppose if an airline wants something sooner, they'll either get Boeing or they're not going [to get one].

O'Leary hasn't been the CEO of Ryanair for some time though he is a leader and can represent the company, this is a tad pedantic but worth pointing out. It's been Eddie Wilson since.

Michael says a lot of things that get him news coverage of Ryanair. He does have a track recording of going against the zeitgeist to profit e.g. he bought a lot of planes after 9/11 knowing that air traffic would bounce back while planes were cheap to purchase.

That said; he's also urged Boeing to take the safety issues more seriously as well: https://news.sky.com/story/boeing-safety-ryanair-rues-minor-...

So I wouldn't see this as an endorsement that Boeing are 100% okay and this is all media spin. There are issues at Boeing and they need to be addressed -- according to the industries big supporters of Boeing.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#132

Post by jsjohnst »

noughtme wrote: post #88
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is why the 737-Max 7 is having problems with the anti-icing system for the engines. What "improvements" did they make to the engines that turned it into a problem?

Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum. They are limited to 5 minutes of use in dry air to prevent the cowling from melting, flying apart, or getting into the engine and causing it to fly apart.

> Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum.

Um, no. Absolutely not “ie plastic”. Composite material in the case of aircraft means it’s made of two or more materials. In the case of modern aircraft, it often is carbon fiber, but can also mean fiberglass and Kevlar (aka aramid fibers).

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#133

Post by euroderf »

hayst4ck wrote: post #17
jsjohnst wrote: post #7

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?

I agree with the way you read it entirely. They did not acknowledge and admit wrong doing. They disavowed responsibility and said "we are complying with public pressure against our will". In other words, they don't understand what they did wrong, but people more powerful than them are forcing them to change. "We are being coerced into expending unnecessary resources." They think it is an engineering problem that can…

> The people most at fault for the state of Beoing will probably cash out with enough money to get spoon-fed caviar for the rest of their life while their progeny will never have to work a day in their life.

Your dissent from techno-neo-feudalism has been duly noted, and added to your Equifax file.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#134

Post by jsjohnst »

noughtme wrote: post #122
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how much it was saved in money and/or weight that it made sense to someone to make the cowling out of "plastic" :) Sometimes it feels like the decision process at Boeing is: - How big of a problem $this can be? - Disaster like - Go for it.

Very likely no money was saved by Boeing, composites are almost always more expensive. Maybe someone with aviation industry knowledge can reply, but my guess is adding a trivial timed shutoff would have triggered an elaborate FAA approval and certification process. That’s probably where the savings were.

The “savings” is entirely due to weight. More weight requires more fuel. The single biggest cost by a large margin in the life of a commercial airline jet is fuel. Increase fuel efficiency by even 1% and you save the airline industry billions.

Source to backup the claim of the scale of worldwide airline fuel usage: https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-...

Source to give you an idea of how much US airlines pay for fuel: https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/us-airlines-january-2023-fuel-c...

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#136

Post by jMyles »

Animats wrote: post #35

The trouble is, Boeing hasn't built a new single-aisle transport since the 757, which first flew in 1982. There was supposed to be a 797 by now, but it keeps slipping into the far future. So they're still cranking out 737 variants, a 1960s design. This is pathetic. Boeing could end up losing out to the COMAC C919, which, although years late, is finally flying a few routes.

Sure they have - they very family under discussion.

Just because they have attempted to foist a polite fiction that it is a 737 variant doesn't mean that it actually is. It's a new single-aisle transport with several serious problems.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#137

Post by tracker1 »

hayst4ck wrote: post #17
jsjohnst wrote: post #7

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?

I agree with the way you read it entirely. They did not acknowledge and admit wrong doing. They disavowed responsibility and said "we are complying with public pressure against our will". In other words, they don't understand what they did wrong, but people more powerful than them are forcing them to change. "We are being coerced into expending unnecessary resources." They think it is an engineering problem that can…

Because they're more concerned with bolstering b stock trades and executive payouts than actually delivering a good product.

They continue to have massive layoffs and lean into outsourcing over preserving knowledge workers and draining those that know the hopes and why's of correct processes.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#138

Post by tracker1 »

dmix wrote: post #95
eastbound wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FAA is 10x more guilty than Boeing. Boeing is not ignoring them, Boeing has benefited from corrupting the FAA.

It's far from just the FAA in the US gov the enabled and encouraged Boeing's monopolistic behaviour. And not just in airplanes. I have a feeling they'd be much more concerned about not messing up and protecting their reputation if they weren't the only domestic player in town.

Maybe time for airlines to start buying from Airbus if Boeing can't meet expectations of safety and quality.

Cancelled orders should have the necessary affect on stock price to scare leadership in the right direction.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#139

Post by mjhay »

jsjohnst wrote: post #132
noughtme wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum. They are limited to 5 minutes of use in dry air to prevent the cowling from melting, flying apart, or getting into the engine and causing it to fly apart.

> Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum. Um, no. Absolutely not “ie plastic”. Composite material in the case of aircraft means it’s made of two or more materials. In the case of modern aircraft, it often is carbon fiber, but can also mean fiberglass and Kevlar (aka aramid fibers).

A larger part is the epoxy, e.g., plastic. It being a composite would actually make it worse than just plastic under cyclic heating, because the epoxy and carbon fiber have different coefficients of thermal expansion.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#140

Post by tracker1 »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #84
ZaoLahma wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, I see. So keeping it around for so long was mostly for avoiding expensive R&D and pilot re-training, and not so much for the 737 being the perfect platform to keep iterating on. Interesting.

A major factor was that Airbus launched the A320 NEO and die hard, lifelong Boeing customers showed interest and even ordered the Airbus offering. Designing a completely new plane (which was considered for quite some time) would have taken far too long and Airbus would gave eaten Boeing's lunch in this important segment. So, Boeing McGivered a solution and updated a 60s airframe for modern use. To not having to recer…

I'm somewhat curious as to what efforts to design a smaller, better fit engine closer to the original form/size with better fuel economy was tried. Combined with newer materials.

It seems like the flight charismatics have changed so much that pilot recertification should have been required anyway.

I have worked on eLearning courses for aerospace in the early-mid 00s but have forgotten mostb of what I learned in that domain back then. It was also mostly mechanic/diagnostic interfaces (ECU, etc)

Post reply on HN