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

Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#71

Post by aviat »

throwaheyy wrote: post #61
wahern wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand the timeline properly, Boeing had a strategy, at least nominally: NMA, an all-new replacement for the 757. Boeing had to be brow-beat by their biggest customers to support the initiative, but at least from the outside they seemed to acquiesce. Airbus responded with the A321XLR, betting it could reach market faster. Boeing countered by dropping NMA and trying to copy the Airbus approach of racing to ma…

What I don’t understand is why Boeing didn’t work with the 757 instead. It’s a much newer design already comparable in size to the A321, and a new 757 variant would have had commonality with many airlines’ existing 757s and not run into the limitations Boeing has had literally “max”ing out the 737.

Boeing 757 does not have cockpit commonality/type rating with 737

I think Boeing missed a chance to update the 757 with 787 cockpit commonality

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#72

Post by my123 »

slater wrote: post #56
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t say too much, but check the deliveries on the 787 that past few months ;)

Looks like the answer is... none...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders_and_...

Boeing halted deliveries of the 787 in May 2021 with the FAA notably citing manufacturing defects. Currently isn't resumed yet.

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#73

Post by marsokod »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #9
justapassenger wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being a refresh of old design, means it's cheaper to retrain people (don't have to full training for the totally different aircraft), a lot of your supporting infrastructure can stay the same while being cheaper to operate. And, in theory (ahm, MAX had some tiny, minor issues there) should be safe and reliable, as it's based on well known and tested platform.

That's a very nice way of saying that it finds a way to extract profit from regulatory systems which 10yr olds could poke holes in. /hj

That's not really the intention behind the initial concept. If you are able to update a plane to make it more efficient while keeping the same behaviour and the same interfaces for the pilot, then it is great and there are no safety concerns with that.

The only issue on the Max is that as part of the refresh, they were not able to keep the same behaviour. And then, instead of fixing it with additional engineering or requiring new training, they hid that under the carpet and made sure the FAA accept itq, leading to crashes and deaths. Plus the denial after the first crash was really disgusting.

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#74

Post by sklargh »

aviat wrote: post #70
MilStdJunkie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I challenge anyone to show me a unconditionally successful Boeing program post 2000 AD. Please. Please show one to me. I am begging you here. Aboulafia had like fifty graphs on exactly how Boeing is doomed, at least as a unified company; they might survive in pieces after a GE-style split. Big B is spending all their money on precisely the wrong products, and leaving the right products to die on the vine. This…

Boeing T-7 Redhawk

This was jointly designed by Saab.

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#75

Post by s1artibartfast »

t_mann wrote: post #68
s1artibartfast wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're only selling planes because AirBus can't build enough for all customers. That certainly wasn't the case for the A380. A380 is my favorite plane to fly on, but Boeing beat them badly in market analysis. The company sank 25+ Billion in A380 development and cant even cover the cost of manufacture so they shut it down. AB also received 9 billion in EU government aid for the AB380. When it comes to too big to fai…

> The company sank 25+ Billion in A380 development and cant even cover the cost of manufacture so they shut it down Yes, and then they quickly pivoted to building the A320neo, and that one just flies without issues, because apparently they know how to build planes that conform to modern safety standards. If Boeing does go down, the US government would very quickly copy the French playbook of building massive state-ba…

It seems like you are saying the same thing as me except Boeing already is a massive state backed enterprise

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#76

Post by t_mann »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #75
t_mann wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The company sank 25+ Billion in A380 development and cant even cover the cost of manufacture so they shut it down Yes, and then they quickly pivoted to building the A320neo, and that one just flies without issues, because apparently they know how to build planes that conform to modern safety standards. If Boeing does go down, the US government would very quickly copy the French playbook of building massive state-ba…

It seems like you are saying the same thing as me except Boeing already is a massive state backed enterprise

I guess, but I'd say Boeing needn't be too big to fail.

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#77

Post by caycep »

my123 wrote: post #72
slater wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like the answer is... none...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders_and_...

Boeing halted deliveries of the 787 in May 2021 with the FAA notably citing manufacturing defects. Currently isn't resumed yet.

yeah, I think it was the first product of the "new Boeing" where everything was outsourced to lower cost subcontractors and none of the resulting parts fit together...

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#78

Post by caycep »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #45
CoastalCoder wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the track record for huge companies successfully fixing major problems with their internal quality / engineering cultures? My impression is that usually or always the company just ends slowly dying instead. I'm thinking of IBM, and maybe Intel, GE, Boeing.

I have the impression that Microsoft has couthed up a lot since the 1990s. Idk though.

That's the impressive part - 2 major pivots to save the company from certain death even though they almost missed the Web, and then mobile.

But maybe it's easier w/ software, less capital and physical equipment than a company building something

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#79

Post by s1artibartfast »

t_mann wrote: post #76
s1artibartfast wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you are saying the same thing as me except Boeing already is a massive state backed enterprise

I guess, but I'd say Boeing needn't be too big to fail.

perhaps nothing should be too big to fail, including AB and Boeing.

That said, the failure of either AB or Boeing would be a difficult transition and it would take several decades to have close to a replacement, if one can arise at all.

Having a large domestic aircraft manufacture is not a given, and comes with a lot of economic and military advantages.

Re: Boeing CEO says planemaker could be forced to cancel 737 Max 10

#80

Post by aunty_helen »

ceejayoz wrote: post #40
aunty_helen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X-37/B

Started in 1999, and it's a little hard to gauge efficacy of a program we know very little about.

Exactly so has existing almost entirely in the window we're talking about. But I think we can guage it by a, still going after 22 years and b, having exceeded design orbit duration by 3x. Obviously the air / space force / nasa etc have been sufficiently happy with the program to keep it going for so long.
Post reply on HN