Boeing CEO says he expects to resume 737 MAX production before mid-year

[TheDark 1,513]

20 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

I would agree with you on many of those points.

 

But as with so companies when they suffer a catastrophic incident, the pendulum swings in the other direction.

 

The MAX was never a 737 airframe and shouldn't ever have been marketed as such.

 

Shame on Boeing, FAA and indeed the customers who should have known better

Boeing's problem was never just the latest Max problems. The root cause is embedded deep inside of Boeing manufacturing and management culture. 

 

That is something what can not be fixed overnight. To fix the root cause, requires full top management shakedown, kicking out most of the people who loved money so much that they forgot safety and quality. 

 

 

[stevenl 29,353]

4 hours ago, TheDark said:

Boeing's problem was never just the latest Max problems. The root cause is embedded deep inside of Boeing manufacturing and management culture. 

 

That is something what can not be fixed overnight. To fix the root cause, requires full top management shakedown, kicking out most of the people who loved money so much that they forgot safety and quality. 

 

 

And let's not forget that they tried to get away with not taking any responsibility. Their initial response was appalling.

[observer90210 8,528]

On 1/22/2020 at 11:52 PM, melvinmelvin said:

I was wondering the same,

could airlines now risk that passengers quite simpy avoid buying tickets if the plane is a 737 MAX?

 

Cannot say for the airlines, but definately passengers would not want to take a risk...those who keep themselves informed.

[Nigel Garvie 3,815]

On 1/24/2020 at 2:28 AM, TheDark said:

Boeing's problem was never just the latest Max problems. The root cause is embedded deep inside of Boeing manufacturing and management culture. 

 

That is something what can not be fixed overnight. To fix the root cause, requires full top management shakedown, kicking out most of the people who loved money so much that they forgot safety and quality. 

This has long been a problem with the Capitalist free market that it seems many people are uncritically wedded to. I am not anti-capitalist, that is just silly, human progress has been built on trade and barter, and if you save enough and invest, that is capitalism. However it is "The unacceptable face of Capitalism" to quote Ted Heath UK PM in the 70s, that is responsible for the sort of behaviour that Boeing has been guilty of - profits before customers. No doubt the senior members of companies who have a large shareholdings as part of their remuneration package, are highly motivated to maximise the dividends, at the expense of whatever. This is inherently not a healthy system. 

 

The problem for Boeing is that aircraft fatalities attract huge public attention. If they were a big Pharma company encouraging opioid consumption, and responsible for many 10s of 1000s of individual deaths, you could get away, and indeed have already got away, with murder.

[candide 11,468]

On 1/23/2020 at 8:28 PM, TheDark said:

Boeing's problem was never just the latest Max problems. The root cause is embedded deep inside of Boeing manufacturing and management culture. 

 

That is something what can not be fixed overnight. To fix the root cause, requires full top management shakedown, kicking out most of the people who loved money so much that they forgot safety and quality. 

 

 

I saw recently a presentation about the financialisation of the economy. There was a comparison between Boeing and Airbus: in brief Boeing used a much larger share of its revenues for shareholder returns and share repurchase than Airbus.

[zydeco 11,275]

1 hour ago, candide said:

in brief Boeing used a much larger share of its revenues for shareholder returns and share repurchase than Airbus.

Absolutely.  A big part of the problem. These are wicked people at Boeing. They intend to force that airplane down everyone's throat no matter what. If that means intentionally hiding its identity, that's what they'll do.

[GinBoy2 8,170]

34 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Absolutely.  A big part of the problem. These are wicked people at Boeing. They intend to force that airplane down everyone's throat no matter what. If that means intentionally hiding its identity, that's what they'll do.

In someways I would agree with hiding it's identity, or be honest and admit it was never a 737!

 

The MAX isn't a bad airframe, in fact it's a great aircraft badly marketed, and with an inherent lie built into it.

 

I go back to the analogy with VW where hubris and commercial arrogance meant both companies they thought they could hide the truth with a little software skullduggery.

 

The KC-46 Pegasus refueller which is a re purposed B767 has essentially the same MCAS control system as the MAX.

The difference being in simulator training crews are trained to acknowledge AoA sensor erroneous data and can override the system, and actually fly the plane.

 

That's the cardinal sin here. The MAX crews had no training on how, or indeed if they could override MCAS.

 

I've spoken to a few guys I know back in the USAF who fly the Pegasus, and their understanding is that on the MAX it was practically impossible to override MCAS compared to the version of MCAS that they use

[tomacht8 6,470]

He also said the company would make some changes to the 737 MAX production line to make it more efficient.

That is not the job.
The task is to deliver an aircraft with a clean weight/balance distribution that also flies without design error correction software.

Edited January 25, 2020 by tomacht8

[tifino 8,402]

 

yeah, just dump the VW Sports Performance chip, and go back to carbies, and cables  ( 707, with 2 engines)   

[TallGuyJohninBKK 25,646]

On 1/23/2020 at 6:30 AM, ukrules said:

Airbus all the way for me in the future. Boeing is dead to me.

 

I will choose my airlines based on their fleet.

 

I probably wouldn't fly on a 737 Max for a good long line into the future, giving the plane a solid chance to prove itself.

 

But as for Boeing's other jets, the 747 and 777 series are proven workhorses, and the current 777-ER AFAIK has a pretty sterling safety record. I fly on 777-ERs all the time and would have no qualms doing so in the future.

 

[ballpoint 15,573]

On 1/23/2020 at 3:42 AM, webfact said:

He said the company should have not have repeatedly revised the plane's forecasted return. "It was hard for anybody to trust us," Calhoun said.

I'd suggest that killing hundreds of people in two aircraft crashes while doing their best to cover up the, at least internally to Boeing, known flaws of the 737 Max - essentially treating human beings as collateral damage in their little race for market share with Airbus, is the actual reason why it's "hard for anybody to trust" them.  Pure arrogance to suggest it's due to any other reason.

[GinBoy2 8,170]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

He also said the company would make some changes to the 737 MAX production line to make it more efficient.

That is not the job.
The task is to deliver an aircraft with a clean weight/balance distribution that also flies without design error correction software.

Well every aircraft has a load/balance characteristic.

 

Some like the B717 are always nose heavy, the A320 tail heavy. Thats when the load planner comes in to determine how you load cargo bins from forward to aft. I do this every day for a living.

 

What Boeing tried to hide was that the MAX had a totally different load balance to the previous versions of the 737 primarily because of the placement of the CFM engines forward of the wing spar.

 

In that respect you are totally right, that MCAS was implemented to try to hide that fact

[Nigel Garvie 3,815]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I probably wouldn't fly on a 737 Max for a good long line into the future, giving the plane a solid chance to prove itself.

 

But as for Boeing's other jets, the 747 and 777 series are proven workhorses, and the current 777-ER AFAIK has a pretty sterling safety record. I fly on 777-ERs all the time and would have no qualms doing so in the future.

 

As a European I've always been pro Airbus, but wherever my loyalties lie I try to have a balanced view. This is about competition between monster companies. Actually both companies have been huge successes over the years, with overall a very good safety record. Flying is much safer than driving for example. 

 

Airbus goofed up with the A380 and misjudged the market. Boeing wisely didn't try to compete, and the 777 and 787 have dominated the long range sales, though the excellent A350 is gaining a respectful share despite being late to the table. In reality it is better to have two companies in competition rather than one monopoly. 

 

I expect Boeing will eventually recover from the awful mistakes with the MAX, though they will definitely lose some of their short haul market. I will never fly on one I hope, though to rule out all other Boeing planes is neither practical nor justified.

 

The real issue is whether Joe Punter, will ever bring the vile titans of corporate greed to heel, I'm not optimistic. 

[balo 12,644]

The damage already done, I will make sure to never fly in a 737 MAX again if I can. 

[candide 11,468]

3 hours ago, zydeco said:

Absolutely.  A big part of the problem. These are wicked people at Boeing. They intend to force that airplane down everyone's throat no matter what. If that means intentionally hiding its identity, that's what they'll do.

It's a much broader problem of the financialisation of the economy as it may lead to insufficient investment. That how the North-american Telecom industry failed, while European and Chinese companies went on investing.