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

FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 884 posts

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#501

Post by ImaCake »

_cenw wrote: post #189
klysm wrote: post #122

Boeing 737 Max is quite the case study in how to ruin a company via merger

Boeing made the 737 NG until 2019. It also allegedly had issues with the contractor Ducommun making the airframe, including "hammering alignment holes into place". But it wasn't nearly as problematic of a plane. The Max is a desperate attempt to compete with the A320 neo ("new engine option"). It is the aviation efficiency gain equivalent of a die shrink, except these engines get bigger, and while Airbus had space to…

> So they angled it, changing flight characteristics. Thus, MCAS, because the entire point of keeping the 737 - a 55 year old design - alive is pilots not having to do an entirely new type certificate.

Holy hell, anyone who does computer modelling can tell you how insane this is. The model, or instrument, will never be able to cover the entire domain space of the real world conditions. You can’t do this an expect nothing to go wrong.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#502

Post by tavavex »

_cenw wrote: post #202
Instantix wrote: post #180

On the other hand we have the proof that an Airbus can hit another plane when landing and deliver everyone fine.

It's honestly astonishing how well the A350 held up for evacuation, which supposedly took 10 minutes. This is the first hull loss, and it actually improves the safety record.

Allegedly, some of it can be attributed to the extensive use of carbon fiber in the A350s fuselage and wings.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#504

Post by dotancohen »

ls612 wrote: post #292
hinkley wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an engineer who got fired for worrying publicly about the fire safety of the carbon fiber hulls during the 787 leadup. It turned out I worked in the same building he had, and I found his old office. Word is after he left they locked it up, like a crime scene. I think they were worried his whistleblowing would turn to leaks and I guess they thought his office would have some sort of evidence? It was an inter…

From the looks of it the composite fuselage of the A350 did its job splendidly, it held out against the fire long enough for everyone to evacuate, only flashing over after >20 minutes.

An emergency divert due to serious in-air fire could last far longer than 20 minutes.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#505

Post by lobochrome »

akira2501 wrote: post #145
AdrianB1 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is correct. However MDD was manufacturing key military products (F-15, F-18) and it was doing bad financially, going bankrupt and jeopardizing the fighter plane production and maintenance was a "national security" problem that forced the Boeing acquisition of MDD.

Weird how you can be a "key manufacturer" yet "go bankrupt." Perhaps they should have just been auctioned off and other investors given an opportunity to create new lines of business out of the incompetent mess they had become. Taking the mess and wholesale buying it into another company and then keeping the management that created the problem in the first place is astronomically dumb.

The reason Boeing had to buy them was that nobody was willing to do so otherwise.

Now whether doing a full blown merger vs an asset deal would have been more advisable can be debated.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#506

Post by calf »

halJordan wrote: post #311
jdksmdbtbdnmsm wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in other words: capitalism, the system we've designed our whole society around

Ah yes, the same capitalism that was around for the building of this industry that was incredibly safe up until it wasnt? Or was it safe because it was heavily regulated back then but the heavy regulations today we ignore because "capitalism"? You cant just throw these single word thought-terminators out there. When an actual cartoon is doing better than you it's time to recalibrate. "Think Mark! Think!"

So you think that the failure of industry regulation is not due to capitalism as it actually exists? What then causes regulatory failure over time?

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#507

Post by blibble »

binoct wrote: post #305
nerdjon wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have made the decision that unless I absolutely can’t avoid it I am avoiding Boeing for the near future entirely. But a 737 max is full no go for me no matter what the situation is. I will do multiple stops before stepping foot on one. Personally I fly exclusively JetBlue in the US and they use Airbus almost exclusively. They have a few of whatever that other brand is. No Boeing.

Please don’t read this as a defense of Boeing, especially the MAX series aircraft, but from a flyer-safety standpoint the statistics show most Boeing aircraft in operation today are extremely safe. The post-200 series 737s, not including the MAX, have some of the largest accumulated flight miles and lowest incident rates of any aircraft ever. The 777 and 747-400 also have exceptional safety records. Even the aging 75…

> but from a flyer-safety standpoint the statistics show most Boeing aircraft in operation today are extremely safe.

it's the ones being delivered right now I'm particularly worried about

such as the two month old one here where the side fell off

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#508

Post by [deleted] »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #492
game_the0ry wrote: post #482

The only remedy at this point is to hold executives financially and morally culpable. Anyone opposed to seeing the entire C-suite and board of directors having their bonuses clawed back and sent to jail? I'm not. Let the guillotine come out, I want to see heads roll.

Sounds like a great way to create an airplane company that no competent people will want to run. Might want to think through the game-theoretic consequences a bit further. For example, instead of ranting and howling about prisons and guillotines, you could point to some successful examples of other companies or orgs that have operated in a similar fashion. That might provide more productive grounds for further discus…

[deleted]

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#509

Post by [deleted] »

Macha wrote: post #415
einpoklum wrote: post #253

I realize it might not be fair to ask right at this moment, but: How come Boeing hasn't produced a clean-sheet-design replacement for the 737, despite its extreme age? I mean, since its design, the 747, 757 and 767 have come and gone, variants and all, no production continuing. Why the endless adaptations of this old thing: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Boeing_7... ?

1. Volume. They've sold so many 737s they're scared to upset the market. 747s 2. Target market. There are airlines like Southwest and Ryanair who use a lot of 737s and have optimised their routines around very specific aircraft, so want as little change as possible. In comparison the bigger aircraft are used more by the legacy carriers and flag carriers, who are more used to operating a mixed fleet and more willing t…

[deleted]

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#510

Post by tavavex »

einpoklum wrote: post #253

I realize it might not be fair to ask right at this moment, but: How come Boeing hasn't produced a clean-sheet-design replacement for the 737, despite its extreme age? I mean, since its design, the 747, 757 and 767 have come and gone, variants and all, no production continuing. Why the endless adaptations of this old thing: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Boeing_7... ?

1. The 737 is so ubiquitous that they didn't want to create something new. They wanted old 737 pilots to be almost automatically certified to fly their new aircraft, and they wanted all the 737-oriented equipment to keep working. So, instead of making a new design, they opted for the easier, cheaper and faster "lipstick on a pig" approach.

2. It was the quicker option. The A320neo was a real gut punch to Boeing, and the execs wanted their response out, fast. Reusing the existing design was a faster and cheaper approach for them.

Post reply on HN