Boeing 737 Max updates.

[Biggles2010 343]

The 737 Max problems have been submerged by current events, but while idly scanning around, I ended up on the Boeing website. Mostly stuff that many will be aware of, but it looks like they are keeping it updated as a series of progress reports. Links below.

 https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/official-statements/ 

https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/737-max-answers/

 

[AviatorMan 253]

There is still a lot of news out there related to Boeing's problems.  e.g.,:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/06/boeing-to-suspend-787-production-in-south-carolina-until-further-notice-due-to-coronavirus.html

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/03/13/boeing-coronavirus-737-max-crisis-aircraft-purchases/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-voluntary-layoffs-offered-to-employees-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/11/business/boeing-next-jets/index.html

 

[Biggles2010 343]

31 minutes ago, AviatorMan said:

There is still a lot of news out there related to Boeing's problems.  e.g.,:

Quite informative, but mostly about the Corona effect on aviation business. Not so much about the Max progress, other than it's added financial load on Boeing.

Nothing yet about how existing Max aircraft will be retro fitted, although it will obviously be delayed for some time.

[overspeed3 410]

I think the Boeing missteps will go certainly down in the annals of corporate greed:  It involved the designing, producing, and ultimately, the decision to introduce this aircraft to the rest of it's global customers without imparting that additional pilot training for MCAS was probably essential.  But, it must also be noted that the fierce competition with the government-subsidized  Airbus probably forced Boeing to forge ahead with essentially, a flawed aircraft. This virus will actually buy Boeing more time, as now the focus by airlines has now shifted to try to get passengers into any aircraft seat... 

[n4gix 4,947]

The problems go far beyond just poor software design:

THE ANCIENT COMPUTERS IN THE BOEING 737 MAX ARE HOLDING UP A FIX

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/9/21197162/boeing-737-max-software-hardware-computer-fcc-crash

Abrand-new Boeing 737 Max gets built in just nine days. In that time, a team of 12,000 people turns a loose assemblage of parts into a finished $120 million airplane with some truly cutting-edge technology: winglets based on ones designed by NASA, engines that feature the world’s first one-piece carbon-fiber fan blades, and computers with the same processing power as, uh, the Super Nintendo.

"EVEN BY LATE-’90S CONSUMER TECH STANDARDS, THE FCC-730S WERE BEHIND THE CURVE"

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Yep I'm calling this airliner the Barn Door, because with an engine powerful enough you can make anything fly, but that doesn't mean it's stable. 🤔

They said Kodak could never fail, but it was Kodak's inability to change and adapt that was its undoing. No reason why you would patch an airliner from 1967 for this long

Edited April 11, 2020 by Matthew Kane

[shivers9 1,174]

That is a Damming review. Wow! It sounds like Boeing should take advantage of this current slow down and add as much padding as they can to the nose and bottom of the planes to soften the impact of future crashes. At least the crews can use those computers to play Pacman while they are waiting to arrive at the scene of the crash.!!😵

[Chock 17,769]

10 hours ago, overspeed3 said:

But, it must also be noted that the fierce competition with the government-subsidized  Airbus probably forced Boeing to forge ahead with essentially, a flawed aircraft.

Actually, Boeing is also the beneficiary of subsidies, so it is incorrect to suggest that 'poor Boeing is scuppered by Airbus getting subsidies'. Both of them are as bad as each other in this respect, although Airbus seem to be a bit more intelligent in the way they go about it, i.e. with their recent Bombardier maneuver.

All airliner companies get subsidies in one form or another, because not one of them could survive without them. But sometimes they get caught out by it and that is exactly why both Airbus and Boeing in particular, constantly play politics with one another in an attempt to scupper their competitor.

If you don't think this is the case, have a look at the ruling made by the World Trade Organisation back in 2016 which deemed that a $9 Billion dollar subsidy paid to Boeing by the State of Washington in return for promises that the existing Triple Seven's production would remain at the Everett and Renton plants, was illegal and had to be paid back. Guess which company was responsible for having pursued that prosecution? Yup, and it was because Boeing had done the same thing to them in pulling them up about their low interest 'loans' they were offering for aircraft purchases, which amounted to illegal subsidies for aircraft sales, otherwise known as 'dumping' (i.e. selling stuff at bargain basement prices, which means you take a loss in the short term with the intention of driving out competition so you can profit from the situation later on).

So you can't really lay the blame for the cheap approach Boeing took with the 737 Max at the door of competition benefiting from subsidies. Boeing's management put safety second and tried to do things on the cheap, and now they are in a position where they are reaping the rewards of such bloody awful false economy, ending up with a situation costing them more in fiscal terms and worse, in reputation, than it would have done to have actually developed a new airliner. Which they're going to have to do anyway now. They were warned that would be what would happen too by their engineers, but those managers were too interested in making a fast buck in their dividends instead of nurturing a company for the long term.

The fact is that the management at Boeing which made that decision should be ashamed of themselves. They took a company which had a reputation for innovation and excellence and dragged it through the mud, all to save a few Bucks and in the process not giving a sh** about whom they killed along the way. This was a company which made brilliant legendary aeroplanes such as the B-17 Flying Fortress, the Boeing 747 and yes, back in the day, the legendary 737, as it was back when it was using the JT8D, before they tried to do what is the equivalent of strapping a jet engine to a Tiger Moth and expecting to compete with MiG-29.

It's a disgrace and it's an insult to the engineers who first made the brilliant Boeing 737-100 and 200 in particular, but also to all the dilligent Boeing workers over the years who made the reputation that those managers cheerfully p***ed away out of pure greed.

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Chock

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Yes the subsidies argument is a bad one, every Airliner receives a Subsidy including Boeing in numerous ways. Majority of what they have ever made has been subsidized on one form or another. I am so surprised at this day in age that argument keeps coming up and should stop. In fact Boeing is about to receive its biggest government bailout in the history, enough said.

[Quasimodo 505]

100% of all taxes collected in Canada go to Bombardier.

[overspeed3 410]

Well Chock, how was Boeing recently awarded 7.5 billions dollars by the World Trade Org. (WTO) after a long-running dispute with Airbus's re: it's European subsidies?  

[lzamm 143]

And there's a case against Boeing still pending at the WTO.  It's a ping-pong game, as Chock said.

Edited April 11, 2020 by lzamm
typo

[overspeed3 410]

Some ping-pong!  The award was double of any previous monetary amount ever awarded by the WTO.  I'm not defending Boeing in any way for their Max malfeasance:  All I meant in my original post here was that the fierce competition with Airbus led Boeing to cut all the wrong corners, subsidies not withstanding... 

[qqwertz 782]

Seems like 737 MAX orders are now cancelled. COVID-19 could dramatically reduce the demand for that plane.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4336759-big-boeing-737-max-cancellation

Peter 

[Chock 17,769]

The tight competition between every aircraft manufacturer is not a modern phenomenon, its always been like that in the airliner industry. You can look at the development of pretty much every successful airliner in the past 80 years and find numerous examples of bold and intelligent decisions from competent management which were at the heart of a success story.

So, going into the board room and crying about how Airbus are making it hard might have been the excuse that the bosses at Boeing used in those board rooms to justify what they did, but it was not the catalyst of coming to that decision, the catalyst was greed. Because it has always been hard to make airliners and it has always required investment. And so it has always required confidence and brave management to consider creating a new airliner. But Boeing in the past had management with enough balls to be confident that their engineers and designers were up to the task of making something which could be competitive as well as safe. Sadly, the bunch of pussies in their management these days who lacked the confidence ability and trust which has been in abundance on their shop floors among the people who made their previous classics, are entirely to blame for this one.

Just have a look at the story of the development of the Boeing 747 and all of the speculative investment Boeing went for in being confident that it would pay off. That was management with the balls to do something and know that yes it would be hard and require large investment, but with a can do attitude it would be a success. If that thing had failed, Boeing would have gone down the toilet, so they simply made the decision to not fail.