Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Fritzbox

Inquitus wrote: »

Even the FAA have said today it is unlikely it will be re-certified in Jan 2020, and they will not rush things, that article is well out of date at this point.

Sure. When I said "in the next few months" I meant sometime around March or April - but it could extend well into the summer.

EASA haven't even had a chance to do the test flights they have said they will require at this point.

Sure, AESA have to be fully satisfied as well. But the impression I get is that EASA are, in principle, not in objection to the MCAS system as an automatic flight control system on the 737 MAX - they do need to be satisfied upon its final implementation though?

Quin_Dub

Fritzbox wrote: »

Sure. When I said "in the next few months" I meant sometime around March or April - but it could extend well into the summer.

Sure, AESA have to be fully satisfied as well. But the impression I get is that EASA are, in principle, not in objection to the MCAS system as an automatic flight control system on the 737 MAX - they do need to be satisfied upon its final implementation though?

Whatever about them addressing the issues and updating software etc. One of the key issues is the lack of training - Before it gets back in the air , every single pilot will have to receive comprehensive training including significant logging hours in a full flight sim (not some iPad version) on the aircraft .

That alone could delay ( or at least massively slowdown) its reintroduction.

Hotblack Desiato

Fritzbox wrote: »

All Airbuses produced today also need "secondary" control systems to eliminate their inherent flaws (they're unstable) to help the pilots operate them. Otherwise they would immediately fall out of the sky.

So what. They were designed to be fly by wire and Airbus spent many years and billions of euro developing and perfecting these systems, redundancies and fail safes and have decades of safe operation to prove it.

Boeing bodged in a system that can kill everyone on board with no backup system, no workable manual override, and reliant on a single sensor with no redundancy.

CJhaughey

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So what. They were designed to be fly by wire and Airbus spent many years and billions of euro developing and perfecting these systems, redundancies and fail safes and have decades of safe operation to prove it.

Boeing bodged in a system that has killed everyone on board , twice with no backup system, no workable manual override, and reliant on a single sensor with no redundancy.

FYP.;)

FishOnABike

banie01 wrote: »

The news only gets worse for Boeing and the FAA on this.



Full story here.

15 Airframe losses expected, and the MCAS issue was still left rumble on to a second fatal crash!

This has to have serious ramifications for both Boeing and the FAA. It's difficult to see how other aviation authorities worldwide can place any faith in either Boeing, the FAA or their combined 'self certification' processes.

This could have long lasting effects with other regulatory authorities insisting on their own certification of an airframe rather than recognising and accepting FAA certification.

The whole concept of self certification needs to be binned as it has been shown time and time again that commercial pressure overrides quality concerns.

coolshannagh28

Amidst this scandal , how has the Boeing share price remained so buoyant ? Surely Hedge funds will short it and bring the company the reward it deserves .

CJhaughey

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Amidst this scandal , how has the Boeing share price remained so buoyant ? Surely Hedge funds will short it and bring the company the reward it deserves .

Because the production of Commercial airliners is only a small part of the entire Boeing company.
They also make Helicopters, Missiles, Rockets and a whole lot of other products for Military as well as Civilian markets.

banie01

CJhaughey wrote: »

Because the production of Commercial airliners is only a small part of the entire Boeing company.
They also make Helicopters, Missiles, Rockets and a whole lot of other products for Military as well as Civilian markets.

Boeing's military contracts are tanking.
They have lost P-8 maintenance, KC46 is still experiencing issues aswell as being again under threat from Northrop/Airbus.

The pentagon are mooting upgraded F-15 buys as a notional capability stop gap but in what is really a step to illegal state aid.
Have dropped out of next gen ICBM upgrades and while they are developing 6th gen fighter, it is reportedly beset with scoping issues and we'll behind the planning curve.

The USAF have been banging the drum for 5th gen and pushing 6th gen development.
Buying a 4.5+ f15 is a total reverse of policy and will be a major issue come any WTO action re:Airbus.

Car99

How are they going to rectify the massive force required to manually trim the horizontal stabilizer in an aircraft travelling at high speed in nose down attitude? All NG's must have the same issue , no?

Hotblack Desiato

But in an NG there isn't an undocumented "feature" pushing the nose down further and more frequently than the FAA thought when they certified it (and I'm in no way willing to let the FAA off the hook in any way, here.)

I'm no pilot but afaik you'd have to really fcuk up on an NG (CoG way out of bounds, perhaps?) to get as far out of trim as MCAS got the accident flights into.

Even then, you could at least try to correct the problem without an undocumented automatic system fighting you!

If anything though, this clusterf**k has exposed the inadequacy of the whole 737-NG and MAX trim system. What might have been workable in a -100 or -200 is starting to look like a different kettle of fish, maybe even Boeing/FAA assumptions which certified the NG are bad. Again, no pilot but I've seen youtube videos of NG pilots manually trimming and it's bloody ridiculous what they have to do - and that's in a controlled, non-emergency situation.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Canadians and/or EASA demanded a redesign of the whole MAX trim system. That'll take a lot of time and a lot of dollars.

Inquitus

Qantas selects A350-1000 as preferred plane for Project Sunrise if it gets off the ground, rejecting the Boeing 777X in the process.

Qantas picked its favorite: Airbus could be the manufacturer to break the record for the longest commercial connection in the world. The Airbus A350-1000 was selected as the “preferred aircraft” for the airline’s upcoming 20-hour flights.

The Australian carrier announced its preference for Airbus on December 13, 2019, at the expense of Boeing which had offered the 777-8. A “detailed evaluation of the Boeing 777X and Airbus A350” was made to pick the aircraft which could participate in the Project Sunrise. “The A350 is a fantastic aircraft and the agreement on the table with Airbus offers us the best possible combination of commercial conditions, energy efficiency, operating costs and customer experience," said Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce in a press release. He also praised the “high reliability” of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB powering the aircraft.

https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/24339-boeing-777x-loses-qantas-project-sunrise-to-airbus-a350

Nijmegen

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/16/boeing-737-max-production-faa

Now talking March. Feels like a drip drip of delays. And reading between the lines of the FAA statement, Boeing not being nearly quick enough to come up with answers.

banie01

Looks like the writing may be on the wall for the MAX!

New York (CNN Business)Boeing's stock fell Monday following a report that the company was considering curbing production of the troubled 737 Max.

Sources told CNN that a decision about the future of the 737 Max could be announced Monday after the US markets close. The company could either suspend or further curb production, they added.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/16/business/boeing-stock-737-max-curb-production/index.html

L1011

Nothing much that has happened since my post predicting doom has made me think that won't come to pass.

If they're going in to a rate cut it'll be gradual but probably continual - wind down supplier and staff contracts rather than a dead stop. If there's a dead stop it may as well signal sending the frames to a metal recycler!

Inquitus

L1011 wrote: »

Nothing much that has happened since my post predicting doom has made me think that won't come to pass.

If they're going in to a rate cut it'll be gradual but probably continual - wind down supplier and staff contracts rather than a dead stop. If there's a dead stop it may as well signal sending the frames to a metal recycler!

One of the big problems noted is that the US has nigh on full employment in the aviation and aviation engineering arenas, so there is no guarantee that if workers get furloughed they won't quit and move to another job somewhere else, once you lose that skilled workforce, you are then is a seriously desperate situation with regard to restarting the line.

L1011

Inquitus wrote: »

One of the big problems noted is that the US has nigh on full employment in the aviation and aviation engineering arenas, so there is no guarantee that if workers get furloughed they won't quit and move to another job somewhere else, once you lose that skilled workforce, you are then is a seriously desperate situation with regard to restarting the line.

Cheaper to pay them to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs than consume components you're paying for to build an airframe you'll have to pay to store in that case. Although plenty of people will only accept that for a short period of time before they look to leave anyway - being paid to sit at home gets extremely boring extremely fast!

Inquitus

L1011 wrote: »

Cheaper to pay them to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs than consume components you're paying for to build an airframe you'll have to pay to store in that case. Although plenty of people will only accept that for a short period of time before they look to leave anyway - being paid to sit at home gets extremely boring extremely fast!

Agreed and it is unlikely Boeing will pay their subcontractors to keep staff on with no work to do, with the 737 Max having @100 vitally important subcontractors, if those subcontractors have a skills drain as they themselves can't foot the bill for paying people to do nothing, then the knock on effect to the 737 Max program could be dramatic. Personally I think the threat of stopping the line is aimed at the FAA and Washington, and not something they can seriously contemplate. They have used up all the 737 Max cash received at this point, but have arranged @$10bn of revolving loans that could plug the gap through Q1 2020 even if it has a desperate impact on their free cash flow.

All in all a very unenvious position for them to find themselves in. That on top of the 777X failing its pressure test means that both the Narrowbody and Future widebody programs are late to market or return to market. A headline example of the 777X's woes is that Qantas "Operation Sunrise" has opted for the A350, if it ever does get off the ground, even if it only represents 12 planes it is the headline maker of the future Ultra Long Haul market and a prestigious feather in the cap of Airbus.

Geuze

If production of the 737 MAX (4th generation?) is cut, or stopped, can or will production of the 737 third generation continue / replace it?

L1011

Geuze wrote: »

If production of the 737 MAX (4th generation?) is cut, or stopped, can or will production of the 737 third generation continue / replace it?

In theory yes. A limited number are still being built on the same line currently.

In practice - there are no orders for the civilian NG anymore, and the parts production pipeline has been wound down over years to the level needed for the military variants + spares. It would take quite some time to get this brought back up. Years not months.

Inquitus

Geuze wrote: »

If production of the 737 MAX (4th generation?) is cut, or stopped, can or will production of the 737 third generation continue / replace it?

Why would anyone buy a 737-NG when it is 20-30% less efficient than a Max or a Neo A320? Not withstanding its issue with slats and pickle forks. It is not a plane of the future, but one that was rightly replaced with more modern engines, even if that replacement is now banned from flying.

Spanish Eyes

Boeing to stop max in January. Only breaking, so more to follow I suppose.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/boeing-will-suspend-737-max-production-in-january.html

Geuze

Inquitus wrote: »

Why would anyone buy a 737-NG when it is 20-30% less efficient than a Max or a Neo A320? Not withstanding its issue with slats and pickle forks. It is not a plane of the future, but one that was rightly replaced with more modern engines, even if that replacement is now banned from flying.

Ok, so if the 737 MAX production is suspended, and the previous generation aren't being built, or are not wanted, then if an airline wants to buy aircraft of the 737 size, they will have to buy from Airbus?

L1011

Geuze wrote: »

Ok, so if the 737 MAX production is suspended, and the previous generation aren't being built, or are not wanted, then if an airline wants to buy aircraft of the 737 size, they will have to buy from Airbus?

Yes, and wait many many years too.

cnocbui

You would think Airbus ought to be having a hard think about opening a new production facility or expanding existing ones.

Strike while the iron is hot - and all that.

Bob24

cnocbui wrote: »

You would think Airbus ought to be having a hard think about opening a new production facility or expanding existing ones.

Strike while the iron is hot - and all that.

From a Chinese perspective they must also be working hard to make sure the commercial launch of the Comac C919 isn’t delayed.

If Boeing’s issues don’t get sorted soon, it could be a golden opportunity to launch a new narrow-body they would never have dreamed of.

Geuze

L1011 wrote: »

Yes, and wait many many years too.

OK, so FR growth plans will be seriously affected?

L1011

Geuze wrote: »

OK, so FR growth plans will be seriously affected?

Yes - and unless they cease fleet retirement/sale plans they could end up in contraction. You can assume they will stop sales and reduce/stop lease returns anyway.

Phil.x

I said early on Boeing needed to quickly replace this model, be that with a few safety mods and cowling and rename the max bit and i was shouted down like a mad man, now if i can only find that post.

L1011

Phil.x wrote: »

I said early on Boeing needed to quickly replace this model, be that with a few safety mods and cowling and rename the max bit and i was shouted down like a mad man, now if i can only find that post.

That's realistically not certifiable, that's the problem. Although they've tried the rename on the still not flying "737-8200" for Ryanair etc.

Enough has come out in the intervening period to put the certification of the NG in to doubt really.

Jeff2

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Boeing to stop max in January. Only breaking, so more to follow I suppose.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/boeing-will-suspend-737-max-production-in-january.html

About time I'd say.

The thing can't fly at the moment and is worthless to them.

murphaph

I wonder what other defects are lurking in all those parked and grounded maxes. The factory was disorganised chaos according to a senior whistleblower. Handovers between shifts weren't even being done. These planes could be ticking time bombs in other respects beyond MCAS. I'll be giving them a wide berth for a year or two if they ever do get certified.

Bob24

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder what other defects are lurking in all those parked and grounded maxes. The factory was disorganised chaos according to a senior whistleblower. Handovers between shifts weren't even being done. These planes could be ticking time bombs in other respects beyond MCAS. I'll be giving them a wide berth for a year or two if they ever do get certified.

Agree, not to mention the extended storage period whereby additional issues could develop.

Whenever service resumes, they’d better double and triple check these before delivering them to the airlines. Any serious enough issue with one of these after they enter service (even one not causing fatalities) and the Max is a goner.

banie01

cnocbui wrote: »

You would think Airbus ought to be having a hard think about opening a new production facility or expanding existing ones.

Strike while the iron is hot - and all that.

The Chinese facility is expanding, the American facility is currently only building 5 neos per month with a ramp plan to 6.
Ideally a large increase in the Stateside facility would allow a quick increase in throughput with the added benefit of dodging the 10% tariff the WTO have imposed on Airbus' US imports.

Even with a magic wand, there is no quick means for Airbus to plug the gap.
It will be years before any noticeable impact is seen from immediate expansion.

Nijmegen

Anyone ever read Michael Crichton's "Airframe"? Starting to feel like it here with Boeing.

L1011

Well worth reading - just maybe not on a plane! Possibly the only Crichton work not yet made in to a film or TV show cause of the cost of the flight scenes, particularly when it came out. Was jabbing at McDD at the time but Boeing has basically become McDD in terms of engineering management

CJhaughey

L1011 wrote: »

Well worth reading - just maybe not on a plane! Possibly the only Crichton work not yet made in to a film or TV show cause of the cost of the flight scenes, particularly when it came out. Was jabbing at McDD at the time but Boeing has basically become McDD in terms of engineering management

IMHO one of the reasons that Boeing has found itself in this situation is because of the MDD management that was integrated into Boeing.

Fritzbox

Bob24 wrote: »

From a Chinese perspective they must also be working hard to make sure the commercial launch of the Comac C919 isn’t delayed.

If Boeing’s issues don’t get sorted soon, it could be a golden opportunity to launch a new narrow-body they would never have dreamed of.

I don't think anyone is in a hurry to buy the Comac 919. Who has ordered this airliner outside China?

L1011

CJhaughey wrote: »

IMHO one of the reasons that Boeing has found itself in this situation is because of the MDD management that was integrated into Boeing.

I'd say it's the main reason. McDonnell killed Douglas and are now doing it to Boeing

Fritzbox

L1011 wrote: »

I'd say it's the main reason. McDonnell killed Douglas and are now doing it to Boeing

That sounds very negative - there is every reason to believe Boeing will survive for a long time yet - it is still a huge and profitable company today.

murphaph

Fritzbox wrote: »

That sounds very negative - there is every reason to believe Boeing will survive for a long time yet - it is still a huge and profitable company today.

Douglas and McDonnell were presumably profitable at one time too.

banie01

L1011 wrote: »

I'd say it's the main reason. McDonnell killed Douglas and are now doing it to Boeing

100% managing to the bottom line rather than accepted engineering norm with safety margin.
Boeing have become renowned in the recent past for over-promising and under-delivering, particularly on the military side.
Both you and I have been flagging the McD issues and the likelihood of at least a long hiatus for the Max for quite a while at this stage.

It is quite strange to see people still buying into the Boeing line of being near a return to service as recently as a couple of days ago.

Southwest have already announced that part of the compensation offered by Boeing will be added to their profit share fund.
Southwest pilots have launched a lawsuit against Boeing to recoup their lost earnings as a result of the grounding.

Ryanair will no doubt have significant penalty clauses in their purchase and options contracts, but their entire fleet renewal plan and growth strategy is laid waste as a result of Boeing's short cuts.

It's only in the last week that trade indicators for Boeing stock have shifted to sell.
There is still a lot more mud to come yet, the 777-X and the regulatory oversight afforded to every FAA certified design over the past 20 years is now suspect, not just Boeing but luckily for the US they don't really have another player in the market.

This issue doesn't just taint Boeing, it taints the entire US regulatory and certification process.

Bob24

Fritzbox wrote: »

I don't think anyone is in a hurry to buy the Comac 919. Who has ordered this airliner outside China?

True (I don’t believe any non-Chinese airline has ordered and I assume certification outside China will take some time), hence my comment this could be a golden opportunity.

Realistically, interest for a first generation Chinese 320/737 competitor is low outside China as the first gen will probably be a bit rough around the edges v.s. what Airbus and Boeing have to offer (and it wouldn’t have a track record).

But now if Boeing isn’t able to deliver a certified plane for another while and/or takes time to resume full production levels while Airbus doesn’t have the capacity to fill the gap; this is when airline execs outside China might start thinking about whether that Chinese option might be be an interesting idea. And even if Airbus was able to ramp-up production I don’t think the airline industry would want to give them a monopoly on this segment, so if It looked like Boeing is losing grip, any potential newcomer would be seen as something that needs to supported.

In short, I am not saying it would be an easy sell for Comac, but that would be as good as market conditions could be for them and an opportunity window they definitly wouldn’t want to miss.

Cookiemunster

Bob24 wrote: »

True (I don’t believe any non-Chinese airline has ordered), hence my comment this could be a golden opportunity.

Realistically, interest for a first generation Chinese 320/737 competitor is low outside China as the first gen will probably be a bit rough around the edges v.s. what Airbus and Boeing have to offer (and it wouldn’t have a track record).

But now if Boeing isn’t able to deliver a certified plane for another while and/or takes time to resume full production levels while Airbus doesn’t have the capacity to fill the gap; this is when airline execs outside China might start thinking about whether that Chinese option might be be an interesting idea. And even if Airbus was able to ramp-up production I don’t think the airline industry would want to give them a monopoly on this segment, so if It looked like Boeing is losing grip, any potential newcomer would be seen as something that needs to supported.

In short, I am not saying it would be an easy sell for Comac, but that would be as good as market conditions could be for them and an opportunity window they definitly wouldn’t want to miss.

The C919 is at least 2 years away from entering service. There's only 5 of them actually built. They're not going to be filling any gaps any time soon.

Bob24

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The C919 is at least 2 years away from entering service. There's only 5 of them actually built. They're not going to be filling any gaps any time soon.

Their plan is to enter the market at some point in 2021, so if they manage follow it, it means one to two years.

For sure this is a medium term rather than short term thing ... but by the time Boeing gets the Max re-certified and flying and resumes full scale production, there will be a backlog and a trust issue - and the C919 might not be that far off anymore.

Granted, if the Max in back in the sky and in production in 2 months time the above won’t really come into play. But Boeing has now being promising to have it back in service within 2 months for about 6 months, and have just announced they are stopping production (which will take some time to restart if and when they are ready resume it) ... so who knows it could be 6 months or even more before they start coming out of the factory again (I am assuming if they are stopping production - a very dramatic and costly decision - it means they aren’t hopeful at all to resume deliveries for at least several months).

Geuze

What about Bombardier?

Do or can they make an equivalent to B737 MAX?

Inquitus

Geuze wrote: »

What about Bombardier?

Do or can they make an equivalent to B737 MAX?

Nope they go for the small end of the market, and their biggest plane is now part of the Airbus Fleet, the A220.

banie01

Geuze wrote: »

What about Bombardier?

Do or can they make an equivalent to B737 MAX?

Sold off their narrow body to Airbus and it's in production and service as the A220.

Again capacity and throughout would be an issue, as would the size.
It will need a stretch to compete directly and that would likely eat into the NEO order book.

banie01

Timaero ( Irish flagged leasing company) have filed suit seeking to cancel their MAX order aswell as seeking damages of $185 million.

Lawsuit filed alleges fraud in so far as Boeing

"Boeing deliberately and knowingly failed to disclose ... the safety issues associated with the design of the 737 Max," the company said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/18/business/boeing-sued-timaero-737-max/index.html

Boeing have booked @$5billion against their P&L to cover lawsuits and compensation but there are some analysts who put the likely liability at closer to $15billion.
Their cash pile will be burnt faster than Escobar's keeping his kid warm

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/business/boeing-737-max-outlook/index.html

Blut2

They're still paying out a dividend too, I believe. Which is just madness, given the cash crunch about to hit them. It just shows how obsessed with share price value the board are, to a point above all other considerations.

Damien360

Blut2 wrote: »

They're still paying out a dividend too, I believe. Which is just madness, given the cash crunch about to hit them. It just shows how obsessed with share price value the board are, to a point above all other considerations.

This is true of pretty much all stock market listed companies. The CEO’s job depends on stock value, everything else is incidental.