Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

MJohnston

banie01 wrote: »

You'd have to wonder how deep Boeing's pockets are

They're a public company, you don't need to guess - https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/cash-on-hand

Edit - actually this is even better, shows their inventory too - https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ba/financials/balance-sheet

banie01

MJohnston wrote: »

They're a public company, you don't need to guess - https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/cash-on-hand

Edit - actually this is even better, shows their inventory too - https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ba/financials/balance-sheet

Thanks.

I had meant it more as a rhetorical device.
I should have framed it better by perhaps asking how much money are Boeing willing to burn to keep the MAX ticking over in the hope of a return to flight on the existing certification?

Where does the fill/kill cost lie?


Given that Boeing have confirmed they aren't bidding against Northrop for the next gen ICBM that's a further $85bln in Govt money they are leaving to NG on the basis that the bid terms are disadvantageous to them.

IMVHO given Boeing's lack of success with many recent bids apart from the T-X, and incurring penalty clauses on the KC-46'S.
Losing a lot of existing civil and military maintenance contracts to private operators and a reliance on trying to sell 4.5gen fighters and support services against competition from multiple companies including Lockheed, Eurofighter, Saab and Dassault before any consideration is paid to Russo/Chinese competition.

Boeing are going to be hugely reliant on that cash pile and given the burn rate, unless further production and inventory cuts are made I do think a serious crunch is coming.

There is no quick fix or return to service for the MAX, and the impact of furloughing workers and suppliers is going to have a big impact across large parts of US aerospace industry.

john boye

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/business/boeing-737-max-faa.html

Some of this is simply mind-blowing.

Inquitus

Southwest cancel Max flights through xmas into early 2020.

Bob24

Inquitus wrote: »

Southwest cancel Max flights through xmas into early 2020.

If airlines are now working with the assumption that the plane won’t be flying before next year, I don’t see how Boeing can keep manufacturing them at the current rate. At the very least they will be a significant slowdown.

Panrich

john boye wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/business/boeing-737-max-faa.html

Some of this is simply mind-blowing.

Boring are in a big hole with the Max. The rudder control cable issue mentioned there could/should be addressed as part of an overall rehabilitation plan for the plane. Boeing should be aiming to re-introduce the safest plane ever built rather than churning out more of the same and hoping that a few software tweaks will make all the problems disappear and the public will be happy to forgive and forget about this ‘blip’.

Shedite27

john boye wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/business/boeing-737-max-faa.html

Some of this is simply mind-blowing.

It's basically saying FAA certification is really self-certification. Sounds like FAA just issue the certs rather that actually doing the checks themselves.

Do EASA do similar? Do companies do the checks themselves?

murphaph

Shedite27 wrote: »

It's basically saying FAA certification is really self-certification. Sounds like FAA just issue the certs rather that actually doing the checks themselves.

Do EASA do similar? Do companies do the checks themselves?

I honestly don't know but I do know the FAA has a dual mandate to promote air travel and also to certify its safety. There is an inherent conflict of interests in that.

I am not aware of any such "promotional" role for EASA.

cml387

murphaph wrote: »

I honestly don't know but I do know the FAA has a dual mandate to promote air travel and also to certify its safety. There is an inherent conflict of interests in that.

I am not aware of any such "promotional" role for EASA.

Indeed, and the FAA have also been guilty in the past of bowing to government pressure (as was the case with the DC-10 issues).

Blut2

john boye wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/business/boeing-737-max-faa.html

Some of this is simply mind-blowing.

This whole article is well worth reading, but this part in particular was a new problem I hadn't heard of before:

Early on, engineers at the F.A.A. discovered a problem with one of the most important new features of the Max: its engines. The Max, the latest version of the 50-year-old 737, featured more fuel-efficient engines, with a larger fan and a high-pressure turbine. But the bigger, more complex engines could do more damage if they broke apart midair.

The F.A.A. engineers were particularly concerned about pieces hitting the cables that control the rudder, according to five people with knowledge of the matter and internal agency documents. A cable severed during takeoff would make it difficult for pilots to regain control, potentially bringing down the jet.

The F.A.A. engineers suggested a couple solutions, three of the people said. The company could add a second set of cables or install a computerized system for controlling the rudder.

Boeing did not want to make a change, according to internal F.A.A. documents reviewed by The Times. A redesign could have caused delays. Company engineers argued that it was unlikely that an engine would break apart and shrapnel would hit the rudder cable.

Most of the F.A.A. engineers working on the issue insisted the change was necessary for safety reasons, according to internal agency emails and documents. But their supervisors balked. In a July 2015 meeting, Jeff Duven, who replaced Mr. Bahrami as the head of the F.A.A.’s Seattle operation, sided with Boeing, said two current employees at the agency.

F.A.A. managers conceded that the Max “does not meet” agency guidelines “for protecting flight controls,” according to an agency document. But in another document, they added that they had to consider whether any requested changes would interfere with Boeing’s timeline. The managers wrote that it would be “impractical at this late point in the program,” for the company to resolve the issue. Mr. Duven at the F.A.A. also said the decision was based on the safety record of the plane.

Engineers at the agency were demoralized, the two agency employees said. One engineer submitted an anonymous complaint to an internal F.A.A. safety board, which was reviewed by The Times.

“During meetings regarding this issue the cost to Boeing to upgrade the design was discussed,” the engineer wrote. “The comment was made that there may be better places for Boeing to spend their safety dollars.”

[...] Managers at the agency had already given Boeing the right to approve the cables, and they were installed on the Max.

The list of problems on the MAX seems to grow longer the more its investigated. Its going to be a long time until its back in the air.

Turbulent Bill

Blut2 wrote: »

This whole article is well worth reading, but this part in particular was a new problem I hadn't heard of before:

I think that's more a grey area rather than an outright problem (like MCAS). Most risk analyses only consider single-point failure, i.e., is safety compromised if one thing breaks. Boeing could legitimately point out that the engine nacelle is designed to contain parts during an engine failure, so cable severing would require two failures (both the engine and the nacelle) which is very unlikely.

I'm guessing that an FAA guideline is non-binding, whereas a requirement is obviously a must. However, if you don't follow the guideline, you should expect a grilling on how your product is demonstrably safe. Looks like the FAA caved to Boeing by not forcing them to test some exploding engines.

plodder

The comment about there being better places to spend their "safety dollars" is really quite damning.

Popeleo

There is a BBC Panorama show about the Max this evening at 8.30, BBC1. I'm not sure how much new material will be in it for aviation news followers but it could be worth a watch.

One line caught my eye in the article below about the show:-

" Since 2013, Boeing has paid $17bn (£13.74bn) in dividends to shareholders and has spent a further $43bn buying its own shares - a spending spree that has helped Boeing treble its share price in just five years."

Possibly the higher executives were more interested in rising share prices for their share options than the safety of their aircraft? Not saying it was malicious but it does point towards an overconfident corporate culture and a company now run by accountants instead of engineers.

BBC News - Work on production line of Boeing 737 Max ‘not adequately funded’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49142761

Nijmegen

At the end of the day when safety regulators are making comments like the below in official documents, God knows what is small and what is big but there are probably many problems and many problems over many flights on many aircraft will bring them down eventually. It's the same thematic issue at play: Regulatory capture and profit maximization.

F.A.A. managers conceded that the Max “does not meet” agency guidelines “for protecting flight controls,” according to an agency document. But in another document, they added that they had to consider whether any requested changes would interfere with Boeing’s timeline. The managers wrote that it would be “impractical at this late point in the program,” for the company to resolve the issue.

Quin_Dub

Nijmegen wrote: »

At the end of the day when safety regulators are making comments like the below in official documents, God knows what is small and what is big but there are probably many problems and many problems over many flights on many aircraft will bring them down eventually. It's the same thematic issue at play: Regulatory capture and profit maximization.

F.A.A. managers conceded that the Max “does not meet” agency guidelines “for protecting flight controls,” according to an agency document. But in another document, they added that they had to consider whether any requested changes would interfere with Boeing’s timeline. The managers wrote that it would be “impractical at this late point in the program,” for the company to resolve the issue.

That single line tells you all that is wrong with the current FAA process.

There are absolutely no circumstances where a regulatory body responsible for Public safety should ever give a tuppenny toss about "Boeings Timeline".

Essentially they are admitting to allowing Boeing to skate on Safety issues to ensure that they got to market ahead of their competitors..

Utterly shameful.

AMKC

I see the BBC Panorama program is all about the 737 Max tonight. It is on at 8.30pm on BBC One.

BeardySi

AMKC wrote: »

I see the BBC Panorama program is all about the 737 Max tonight. It is on at 8.30pm on BBC One.

Was rather poor, barely scratched the surface of what went on.

Inquitus

BeardySi wrote: »

Was rather poor, barely scratched the surface of what went on.

Agree pretty crap.

BobbyBobberson

Any recommended reads for those of us who know very little on the whole thing? Just watched the BBC documentary. There is tonnes of article out there but just wondering was there any people would recommend.

Cheers

lfc200

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Any recommended reads for those of us who know very little on the whole thing? Just watched the BBC documentary. There is tonnes of article out there but just wondering was there any people would recommend.

Cheers

Decent article from the New York Times that was posted a few pages back

BobbyBobberson

Cheers lfc200, will take a look.

murphaph

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Any recommended reads for those of us who know very little on the whole thing? Just watched the BBC documentary. There is tonnes of article out there but just wondering was there any people would recommend.

Cheers

Google the Seattle Times aviation correspondent. He's written some enlightening articles on Boeing.

STB.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That single line tells you all that is wrong with the current FAA process.

There are absolutely no circumstances where a regulatory body responsible for Public safety should ever give a tuppenny toss about "Boeings Timeline".

Essentially they are admitting to allowing Boeing to skate on Safety issues to ensure that they got to market ahead of their competitors..

Utterly shameful.

Yep. Safety oversight hived off to manufacturer. Managers rather than engineers signing off on certification.


Its been going on some time and not just on the Max. The short cut culture at Boeing is discussed earlier on in this thread. Tim Tate did a enlightening documentary several years ago on the Boeing 737 NG series.. It was fairly damning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxxtzBTxGU

L1011

I'm starting to have a feeling the MAX won't fly again. Ever.

There are too many issues coming up to be patched away; and the airframe is uncertifiable as a new aircraft. Rework would be uneconomic - and anyway, certain customers won't take it if it's not on the 737 type cert; Southwest particularly.

Change the rudder to FBW and you're adding more computational load to a set of systems that can't take it - and that's if that's even allowed on grandfathering. The deeper they dig the more chance they find something that affects the 737NG also like the undersized trim wheel.

I'm not sure if the wing has changed sufficiently that they'd need a new pylon to go back to the CFM56; but if they do they need to design it ASAP. Get something done to get the built frames working as basically NGs with aero improvements and the different size/layout options to try cut the losses; and accelerate the cleansheet design. The US Govt will find a way to bail them out under the counter if need be.

banie01

L1011 wrote: »

I'm starting to have a feeling the MAX won't fly again. Ever.

I've been of a similar opinion for quite a while.
Posted here a couple of months ago that Boeing are going to be very vulnerable to takeover as a result of this and I've alluded to that and more in many of my posts on this topic.

The US government will I think, try and avoid that at all coats to ensure some viable competition exists to Lockheed.

Boeing's entire risk management and oversight culture has been seriously compromised and there's no quick, cheap or painless way for them to rebuild that lost trust.

Nibs05

A very very big if the max never flies again, what do you do with the the current airframes

Inquitus

Nibs05 wrote: »

A very very big if the max never flies again, what do you do with the the current airframes

STB.

Nibs05 wrote: »

A very very big if the max never flies again, what do you do with the the current airframes

Sell them off on ebay as pods. You'd never sell enough dustbins.

Car99

I can see Ryanair buying some A320's very soon.

banie01

Car99 wrote: »

I can see Ryanair buying some A320's very soon.

Not if they expect delivery within the next 4 years or so.
The will be seeing a bump in the residual values of their NGs tho.

Nibs05

STB. wrote: »

Sell them off on ebay as pods. You'd never sell enough dustbins.

Housing crisis sorted hah

STB.

Nibs05 wrote: »

Housing crisis sorted hah

Was €84 million.


>>Now €299.99

Bob24

STB. wrote: »

Was €84 million.


>>Now €299.99

Bargain only if it includes delivery!

Otherwise you might have to disassemble it, ship the parts, and reassemble it in Ireland. You might put the MAX in the guinness book of records as the first airliner crossing the Atlantic without starting its engines though ;-)

Inquitus

Bob24 wrote: »

Bargain only if it includes delivery!

Otherwise you might have to disassemble it, ship the parts, and reassemble it in Ireland. You might put the MAX in the guinness book of records as the first airliner crossing the Atlantic without starting its engines though ;-)

Are there any parked in Ireland or nearby?

Captain_Crash

Inquitus wrote: »

Are there any parked in Ireland or nearby?

A couple of Norwegians are in DUB and I think there are a few in SNN (but don't quote me)

Inquitus

A quick google says the cost of parking and doing the monthly required maintenance to keep a Max 8 flight worthy is $2k a month. I would assume the bulk of that is the maintenance as Boeing likely aren't charging themselves for use of their staff carpark!

goingnowhere

Captain_Crash wrote: »

A couple of Norwegians are in DUB and I think there are a few in SNN (but don't quote me)

2 in Dublin, they have moved around in recent weeks but they have been there since the grounding

HTCOne

Inquitus wrote: »

A quick google says the cost of parking and doing the monthly required maintenance to keep a Max 8 flight worthy is $2k a month. I would assume the bulk of that is the maintenance as Boeing likely aren't charging themselves for use of their staff carpark!

The problem is the longer you store them the more work is needed to bring them back to an airworthy state. It's a 7 figure sum to bring most airliners out of extended mothballing. This thing won't fly again this year and I'm also coming around to the belief it won't fly on the same type cert as the NG ever again. The amount of work needed on autopilot alone requires a complete redesign by the sounds of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the ones already manufactured are flown on their own unique type cert with resulting heavy compensation payments from Boeing. They may even be converted to freighters! Anyone who hasn't had theirs built yet gets a free NSA (the codename for the eventual Boeing replacement for the 737....Next Small Airliner).

The 787 programme is hoped to break even because of the extra $25 billion they had to put in to fix post production issues (most notably the batteries), the 747-8 was a commercial flop, the 767 tanker programme has been a disaster, the 777X is now delayed and will be scrutinised to hell with all the extra focus on grandfathering. A lot of issues to be overcome.

Hotblack Desiato

Will probably be a decade before an all-new 737 replacement can go into service.

NG going back into production looks inevitable.

Bob24

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Will probably be a decade before an all-new 737 replacement can go into service.

NG going back into production looks inevitable.

I know Airbus couldn’t easily ramp up production to absorb all demand and airlines wouldn’t want to create a situation whereby there is only one potential supplier for this key category of aircrafts. But still, wouldn’t Boeing struggle to find takers for the NG which isn’t competitive in terms of energy efficiency? (the very reason the Max programme was initiated - an NG means extra fuel cost for the airline today compared to Airbus’ offering, not to mention what I think is a real risk of some type of environmental taxes being applied in the next decade on less energy efficient aircrafts - and maybe even a PR risk for airlines which as public environmental concerns are increasing could could be pinpointed for using a dirtier type of aircrafts)

troyzer

Bob24 wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Will probably be a decade before an all-new 737 replacement can go into service.

NG going back into production looks inevitable.

I know Airbus couldn’t easily ramp up production to absorb all demand and airlines wouldn’t want to create a situation whereby there is only one potential supplier for this key category of aircrafts. But still, wouldn’t they struggle to find takers for the NG which isn’t competitive in terms of energy efficiency? (the very reason the Max programme was initiated - an NG means extra fuel cost for the airline today compared to Airbus’ offering, not to mention what I think there is a real risk of some type of environmental taxes being applied in the next decade on less energy efficient aircrafts - and maybe even a PR risk for airlines which as public environmental concerns are increasing could could be pinpointed for using a dirtier type of aircraft)

Aviation fuel taxes are inevitable. I doubt they'll be punitive at first but combined with the new awareness of how environmentally unfriendly aviation is; I suspect there will be a lot of pressure on airlines to ditch old planes.

Cookiemunster

troyzer wrote: »

Aviation fuel taxes are inevitable. I doubt they'll be punitive at first but combined with the new awareness of how environmentally unfriendly aviation is; I suspect there will be a lot of pressure on airlines to ditch old planes.

The enviromental concerns over the aviation industry are being overblown. It only accounts for 2% of global CO2 emissions and aircraft manufacturers are on a fuel efficiency drive. But no doubt you are correct and pressure will be put on to hammer the industry while ignoring the the big ticket polluters in industry and agriculture.

murphaph

Bob24 wrote: »

I know Airbus couldn’t easily ramp up production to absorb all demand and airlines wouldn’t want to create a situation whereby there is only one potential supplier for this key category of aircrafts. But still, wouldn’t Boeing struggle to find takers for the NG which isn’t competitive in terms of energy efficiency? (the very reason the Max programme was initiated - an NG means extra fuel cost for the airline today compared to Airbus’ offering, not to mention what I think is a real risk of some type of environmental taxes being applied in the next decade on less energy efficient aircrafts - and maybe even a PR risk for airlines which as public environmental concerns are increasing could could be pinpointed for using a dirtier type of aircrafts)

I think Boeing will still shift large numbers of NGs given the waiting list for neos. Airlines have basically no other choice if they want an airplane in that category. It's keep your even older plane while waiting years for the neo or take the NG. Boeing should (IMVHO) focus on a new airplane and just forget this max disaster. They gambled and lost with it.

errlloyd

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The enviromental concerns over the aviation industry are being overblown. It only accounts for 2% of global CO2 emissions and aircraft manufacturers are on a fuel efficiency drive. But no doubt you are correct and pressure will be put on to hammer the industry while ignoring the the big ticket polluters in industry and agriculture.

I am no environmental scientist, but I think the issue isn't just how much Co2 they put out, but where. A high percentage of the greenhouses gasses are delivered directly to the upper atmosphere where they are less likely to be captured by trees rainfall etc.

Hotblack Desiato

Bob24 wrote: »

But still, wouldn’t Boeing struggle to find takers for the NG which isn’t competitive in terms of energy efficiency? (the very reason the Max programme was initiated - an NG means extra fuel cost for the airline today compared to Airbus’ offering

True, but cheaper to buy/lease than a MAX (Assuming MAX doesn't go back into service soon enough but at rock-bottom lease rates due to airline/passenger resistance)
A design proven in service, which pretty much any prospective MAX operator is already flying.
Higher fuel costs than a MAX yes, but still more efficient than the Classics many 737 operators are still using
Same type cert as your existing NGs, which can't be guaranteed going forward for the MAX.
If fuel costs were the only consideration then Ryanair would have gone 320 years ago.

not to mention what I think is a real risk of some type of environmental taxes being applied in the next decade on less energy efficient aircrafts - and maybe even a PR risk for airlines which as public environmental concerns are increasing could could be pinpointed for using a dirtier type of aircrafts)

Some form of fuel tax is inevitable but any increase is likely to be small compared to normal fuel price fluctuations.
Over the years plenty of airlines have successfully used the "cheap but thirsty airframe" strategy - Dan-Air and Comet 4s, Jet2 and ancient 737s, etc. Might not be as successful in the future again, but the NGs are hardly old crocks - still being delivered this year - there will be hundreds of them still flying years from now.

troyzer

Cookiemunster wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Aviation fuel taxes are inevitable. I doubt they'll be punitive at first but combined with the new awareness of how environmentally unfriendly aviation is; I suspect there will be a lot of pressure on airlines to ditch old planes.

The enviromental concerns over the aviation industry are being overblown. It only accounts for 2% of global CO2 emissions and aircraft manufacturers are on a fuel efficiency drive. But no doubt you are correct and pressure will be put on to hammer the industry while ignoring the the big ticket polluters in industry and agriculture.

It's not overblown at all. The emissions are put straight into the upper atmosphere which magnifies their effect. Personally, I think cheap aviation is the one thing I'd struggle to sacrifice on the alter of the environment. I'm already a vegetarian who's cycling more and more but I wouldn't give up the plane.

Airlines are becoming more fuel efficient, yes. But they're only doing this to fly further for cheaper. They're not really reducing their emissions.

HTCOne

troyzer wrote: »

It's not overblown at all. The emissions are put straight into the upper atmosphere which magnifies their effect. Personally, I think cheap aviation is the one thing I'd struggle to sacrifice on the alter of the environment. I'm already a vegetarian who's cycling more and more but I wouldn't give up the plane.

Airlines are becoming more fuel efficient, yes. But they're only doing this to fly further for cheaper. They're not really reducing their emissions.

IBAC are putting massive money into Bio Fuel. They say all business aviation growth will be carbon neutral from next year, and the entire business aviation industry will be carbon neutral by 2030. Those are lofty claims and are far more ambitious than any comparable industry I can think of. Granted it's in Johnny Billionaires best interest to avoid becoming a target in his GLF6. But if they crack the bio fuel industry There's no reason why it can't be scaled up to commercial aviation also.

Electric won't be able to meet commercial aviation needs within our lifetimes. The power density vs weight, or "bang for your kilo" will never get near kerosene, you'd end up with a 747 sized battery to carry a few dozen people. Bio Fuel needs to be advanced.

josip

HTCOne wrote: »

...But if they crack the bio fuel industry There's no reason why it can't be scaled up to commercial aviation also.
..

Doesn't bio fuel compete with food crops for limited arable global land?

troyzer

josip wrote: »

HTCOne wrote: »

...But if they crack the bio fuel industry There's no reason why it can't be scaled up to commercial aviation also.
..

Doesn't bio fuel compete with food crops for limited arable global land?

Fourth gen biofuels can be grown on non-arable land and some forms are theoretically carbon neutral over their life cycle.

But to be honest, if this was the silver bullet for fossil fuels you'd think it would be getting wall to wall coverage.

john boye

Part of me wonders if Ryanair's announcement today is with a view to cancelling their max order (or long-term postponing it) or if they know something that we don't about the future of the max programme.