The Boeing Thread

[EvaDK]

The tragic and deep irony of the 737Max scandal, is that if Boeing had required pilot retraining for getting certified for the Max, the MCAS system would never had been needed and installed in the first place. This was criminal neglect that lead to manslaughter, because Boeing kept the implementation of MCAS a secret from the pilots, airlines and the FAA. Boeing executives should be in prison.

If Boeing is to survive and succeed in the long run, the company needs a completely new management and corporate culture. And much more investment into R&D instead of making profits and bonuses for the executives. Airbus is already years into developing a new sustainable fuel aircraft type to succeed the A320Neo in 2035-40. I'm not aware of Boeing actively developing a new aircraft to succeed the 737 lineup. Airlines flying in the EU, will have no alternative to Airbus in the future, if Boeing doesn't come up with an aircraft that also runs on sustainable fuel due to EU regulations.

 

[r16]

mcas exists solely for 9/11 type events . Not even myself could have saved those two . Think whatever you want to think about these two sentences . As for sustainable fuel , let us first see if EU survives that long to enforce those rules .

 

[EvaDK]

MCAS was developed for and used in Boeing made cargo airplanes, I think. It was never intended for passenger carriers. It was not developed for the 737Max; Boeing just took something they had on the shelf already and put it into the Max. Again, saving money reasons.

The EU made a law concerning zero-emission EVs and set out 2035 as the year, after which petrol and diesel cars can no longer be sold as new in the EU. Whether that date sticks is not important. What is important is that both car manufacturers and car buyers believe it will happen and act and plan ahead accordingly. EVs made out 33% of new car sales here in Denmark in 2023; +50% if you include plug-ins and hybrids. It also helps that you pay less in taxes for an EV than you do with a comparable petrol/diesel car.

 

[Estebonrober]

The audit results are in.

Dish soap, hotel key cards, and confusion: Boeing FAA audit unearths dozens of issues

'This won’t be back to business as usual...'

www.popsci.com

62.9% of audits were passed by Boeing.
D- is still a passing grade in school, but maybe not for staying in the sky.

46% of audits were passed by Spirit, the main contractor making parts.
F is a fail!

58% for Boeing engineers testing how well they understood quality control.
F again!

This is what it looks like when your engineering company becomes a finance company... It took a while but stock buybacks have been more important to Boeing then making good products for over twenty years now and thus...

 

[Arwon]

Incredible that they're just straight up killing their opponents like Shinra now

 

[PhroX]

The tragic and deep irony of the 737Max scandal, is that if Boeing had required pilot retraining for getting certified for the Max, the MCAS system would never had been needed and installed in the first place. This was criminal neglect that lead to manslaughter, because Boeing kept the implementation of MCAS a secret from the pilots, airlines and the FAA. Boeing executives should be in prison.

If Boeing is to survive and succeed in the long run, the company needs a completely new management and corporate culture. And much more investment into R&D instead of making profits and bonuses for the executives. Airbus is already years into developing a new sustainable fuel aircraft type to succeed the A320Neo in 2035-40. I'm not aware of Boeing actively developing a new aircraft to succeed the 737 lineup. Airlines flying in the EU, will have no alternative to Airbus in the future, if Boeing doesn't come up with an aircraft that also runs on sustainable fuel due to EU regulations.

If they'd made the 737MAX require pilot retraining, they basically wouldn't have been able to sell any. That was realistically the only selling point of it - and it was one driven by their customers. Airbus' new A320s caught Boeing cold, it was essentially a brand new aircraft that Boeing weren't in any position to compete with in terms of features and technology, as development of a genuine competitor would take 10+ years. However, the many of the airlines with extensive 737 fleets didn't want to have to pay for not just new aircraft, but also type training on their pilots (which is really expensive when you consider not just taking the pilot out of service, but also instructors who could otherwise be training new crew, and the aircraft needed for training flights), so they asked Boeing for an updated 737 that retained type. If there wasn't an option which retained type, they might as well go for the Airbus, as it was an overall better plane. And so Boeing made what their customers wanted - updated technology and better engines on a cheap but functional base. If they didn't do this, they were completely screwed.

And it's not a fundamentally unreasonable idea. It wouldn't be perfect, but they could have a functioning, safe airplane if they had gone about it properly. It obiously required a bunch of workarounds from Boeing, such as MCAS. But even that wasn't really a problem in of itself, most modern planes have automated systems that influence the flight controls. The issue with MCAS was them skimping on training, warning systems and most heinously redundancy. The first two are bad, but probably not in of themselves criminal. But anything flight critical needs to have multiple layers of redundancy. The hydraulic leak I commented on earlier in this thread? The 777 has three completely seperate hydraulic systems and there are additional controls within each those systems that can keep some pressure to critical systems in the case of a leak. The MCAS based it's decisions on one single sensor. That was the decision that killed hundreds of people.

 

[EvaDK]

So, are you saying that if Boeing had just added an extra sensor to MCAS on the Max, then everything would have been fine?

You don't see the corporate culture shift implemented by both recent and current Boeing executives, as the main problem that threatens the survival of the company?

 

[PhroX]

So, are you saying that if Boeing had just added an extra sensor to MCAS on the Max, then everything would have been fine?

You don't see the corporate culture shift implemented by both recent and current Boeing executives, as the main problem that threatens the survival of the company?

Oh no, there are defintely massive problems with the coporate culture, not questioning that (and there are more broader problems with our society where we allow people to hide behind coporations instead of being held repsonsible for their actions). And indeed that culture is exactly what lead to the MCAS system not having proper redundancy. I was merely going into more detail of the problem with that aircraft: the basic idea of the plane was a decent one - it wasn't perfect by any means, but in the circumstances, it wasn't bad - but Boeings cost cutting on flight critical systems killed hundreds of people.

 

[r16]

in a thing most people will think to be extremely irrelevant , some Greek Red Cross official missed his flight in the Ethiopian crash and it was widely covered for some reason , as if that would make people unhappy in some place or whatever . Let us not get it to a level where one declares Boeing will outlast Airbus (no matter what) . That thing always turns into a trade war , some chief prevalent discussion topic in courts and stuff . Anyone who wants fighter jets ? You can clearly do it on your own ...

 

[EvaDK]

In the interests of airplane commuters and the sector as a whole, you don't want Boeing to fail; you want Boeing to change and improve. Because if Boeing goes under, Airbus might fall in a similar trap and exploit market dominance to spend less on R&D and safety protocols and change its own corporate culture for the worse. Competition is healthy; it advocates progress and creates new technologies. Monopoly is always to be avoided in the free market sphere.

Oh no, there are defintely massive problems with the coporate culture, not questioning that (and there are more broader problems with our society where we allow people to hide behind coporations instead of being held repsonsible for their actions). And indeed that culture is exactly what lead to the MCAS system not having proper redundancy. I was merely going into more detail of the problem with that aircraft: the basic idea of the plane was a decent one - it wasn't perfect by any means, but in the circumstances, it wasn't bad - but Boeings cost cutting on flight critical systems killed hundreds of people.

Got it.

 

[r16]

oh-kay , the United order for Max10 is supposedly for 277 plus 200 options and they are getting a dozen or whatever Airbuses . Peanuts in both cases .

the recommendation is for treading lightly . Every single institution will hotly deny the two accidents happened at some time when some person in CFC was not popular for voicing stuff , you know , fighter plane stuff . So , like in this age when Macron is offering to deploy (additional) visible forces under his nuclear umbrella and stuff , ı have no issues with some brotherly expression of love where RR gets the engine contracts and King Charles giving some baronetcy or whatever it is called in addition to an OBE to Macron . Like did people think his threatening us with nuclear weapons to sell just 18 Rafales to Greece would be forgotten ? The thing is , if one reads deep enough , that the Airbus is not too big to fail and it will go under first ... Yeah , like read deep enough . It is rather clear , ı would say .

 

[Lexicus]

and which company isn't that these days ? When ı started reading in English , like late 80s , Airbus was destined to overtake Boeing by 90s and that somehow didn't happen ... It is an "American" advantage but then a lot of things are to be said about the brilliance of the smart people of the 21st Century America . You see , ı have an itch to comment when things get explained as (it is only natural because,) ...

Yes, my point is Boeing is in competition...to deliver shareholder value, not to design the best or safest airplanes.

 

[r16]

no , the point is unlike the two Max accidents there is a substantial body of American public that might want to hear about "such a betrayal" of American interests . They are rather more dangerous than the American Left critizing the money making practices of big corporations . They are not buying the "We're killing Communists" line afterall .

 

[Plains-Cow]

Did John Oliver always have buggy eyes or is that just his show?

Johnny O's always had that phenotype. It helps for that deer-in-headlights everyman look that makes his messaging less threatening.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Also, my investment in the billiards car IPO will finally pay off.

 

[danjuno]

Amtrak Gang Assemble!

 

[Marla_Singer]

If they'd made the 737MAX require pilot retraining, they basically wouldn't have been able to sell any. That was realistically the only selling point of it - and it was one driven by their customers. Airbus' new A320s caught Boeing cold, it was essentially a brand new aircraft that Boeing weren't in any position to compete with in terms of features and technology, as development of a genuine competitor would take 10+ years. However, the many of the airlines with extensive 737 fleets didn't want to have to pay for not just new aircraft, but also type training on their pilots (which is really expensive when you consider not just taking the pilot out of service, but also instructors who could otherwise be training new crew, and the aircraft needed for training flights), so they asked Boeing for an updated 737 that retained type. If there wasn't an option which retained type, they might as well go for the Airbus, as it was an overall better plane. And so Boeing made what their customers wanted - updated technology and better engines on a cheap but functional base. If they didn't do this, they were completely screwed.

And it's not a fundamentally unreasonable idea. It wouldn't be perfect, but they could have a functioning, safe airplane if they had gone about it properly. It obiously required a bunch of workarounds from Boeing, such as MCAS. But even that wasn't really a problem in of itself, most modern planes have automated systems that influence the flight controls. The issue with MCAS was them skimping on training, warning systems and most heinously redundancy. The first two are bad, but probably not in of themselves criminal. But anything flight critical needs to have multiple layers of redundancy. The hydraulic leak I commented on earlier in this thread? The 777 has three completely seperate hydraulic systems and there are additional controls within each those systems that can keep some pressure to critical systems in the case of a leak. The MCAS based it's decisions on one single sensor. That was the decision that killed hundreds of people.

The problem in the first place was to pretend we could make fly the MAX exactly like the NG even if the LEAP engine didn't fit under the wing and had to be moved further ahead of it, therefore changing the aircraft physics. At the very least, Boeing should have said from start that this would require a software control correction rather than hiding MCAS from the FAA.

It's by that lack of transparency that Boeing played the sorcerer's apprentice, jeopardizing its reputation in the process.

And if indeed announcing how things were would have made it unprofitable to go for the MAX, Boeing had back then the Yellowstone project consisting in building a brand new narrow-body as a mini 787 instead. This all comes from Boeing's own choices, and it could certainly have been avoided with another corporate culture.

 

[stfoskey12]

Amtrak Gang Assemble!

Sadly Amtrak has so few good routes. I can get between OKC and San Antonio in a day on Amtrak, whereas with flying I can go anywhere in the country.

 

[danjuno]

The infrastructure bill was supposed to have added some new routes, but we'll see how they shake out.

 

[r16]

just information wise , this thread lacks that an United jet (a Max or whatever) lost part of its fuselage like peacefully between taking off from San Fransisco and landing at some place called Melford , like a day later after "my posts" or whatever the hell .