Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Tenzor07

Interesting article: http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=637

About the new CEO of Boeing:

This is where Calhoun’s resume is concerning. Aside from a few years at GE Aircraft Engines, he hasn’t been an aerospace executive. Much of his experience has been in top management in Jack Welch-era GE, the same as McNerney. Much of his recent experience has been with private equity, which can be useful in leaning out fat companies, but that’s hardly Boeing’s problem right now. And, as fellow commentator Scott Hamilton put it, “He’s been on the Board since 2009. He’s been part of the Board policy-making that led to the cost-cutting some say had deleterious impact on the development of the MAX. He’s been part of the Board decisions that shareholder value is the No. 1 priority at Boeing.” In short, Calhoun looks a lot like the people who brought Boeing to the position it’s in today.

Rawr

Inquitus wrote: »

Boeing to recommend SIM Training for 737-Max Pilots, that's not going to go down well with the customers, currently only 34 SIMs available globally.



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/business/boeing-737-max-simulator-training.html

A cheeky part of me wonders if they'll put that SIM training on an iPad, that'll only take one hour to complete! :pac:

Tenzor07

Rawr wrote: »

A cheeky part of me wonders if they'll put that SIM training on an iPad, that'll only take one hour to complete! :pac:

They won't.

L1011

Rawr wrote: »

A cheeky part of me wonders if they'll put that SIM training on an iPad, that'll only take one hour to complete! :pac:

No, this is actual sim time - the iPad thing has been revealed to be insufficient. And realistically this is only the opening gambit from Boeing.

A separate type rating on the same overall cert (as is the case for the CRJ1000 I think) is one potential way out of the mess - an entire new type cert is impossible due to many grandfathered things that are unacceptable now.

Tenger

https://www.ft.com/content/4d24440c-3239-11ea-a329-0bcf87a328f2

Only 36 suitable Sims worldwide? Seems a tiny number. I wonder can older B737 Sims be upgraded?

Edit; article says 34 Max Sims worldwide. Southwest has secured 3 for itself with 3 more awaiting certification. United say they have 3 ready. No comment from American.

Hotblack Desiato

I recall reading somewhere that at the time of the MAX entering service there wasn't a single MAX sim in the world.

Henry Ford III

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I recall reading somewhere that at the time of the MAX entering service there wasn't a single MAX sim in the world.

That's because they weren't needed - common type rating with 800 series.

LiamaDelta

Some pretty shocking documents released by Boeing ('in the interests of transparency'!) that show the commentary of staff in internal messaging. Basically saying they wouldn't put their family on a MAX and admitting to having to cover things up. Designed by clowns that are managed by monkeys. I know that it's just a certain snapshot and is subjective but if that's the company culture it doesn't bode well for them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html

Sorry, that might be behind a paywall. Quick search will find it for you.

twinytwo

LiamaDelta wrote: »

Some pretty shocking documents released by Boeing ('in the interests of transparency'!) that show the commentary of staff in internal messaging. Basically saying they wouldn't put their family on a MAX and admitting to having to cover things up. Designed by clowns that are managed by monkeys. I know that it's just a certain snapshot and is subjective but if that's the company culture it doesn't bode well for them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html

Sorry, that might be behind a paywall. Quick search will find it for you.

Surely Boeing's days with the max are numbered. No matter what they do to the plane now, huge % of people will refuse to fly them? I for one will never set foot on a max

easypazz

twinytwo wrote: »

I for one will never set foot on a max

You only think that. Once things settle down and it logs enough hours under its belt things will be all forgotten about.

L1011

I honestly think they'll never enter passenger service. The floor/seating rail issue that's being lost in the noise may be financially insurmountable (as in building a new aircraft is cheaper) and they could end up being nice cheap box shifters for the parcels firms.

Fritzbox

L1011 wrote: »

I honestly think they'll never enter passenger service.

The MAX? They have already entered service, and then subsequently withdrawn. I believe the 737 MAX will reenter service within the next few months or so, maybe by summer time.

The floor/seating rail issue that's being lost in the noise may be financially insurmountable (as in building a new aircraft is cheaper) and they could end up being nice cheap box shifters for the parcels firms.

Is that not the tanker aircraft, for the USAF, you are referring to? Different project, and I think most of its problems have been resolved?

L1011

Enter/re-enter whatever. I really doubt it'll meet that target, if ever.

No, there is an identified problem that the seat rails are not up to the required G forces, which is likely not fixable without reeengineering the entire floor. The deep dive is finding more and more little bits and pieces

Inquitus

The full release is available in this article, interesting reading.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/9/21059420/boeing-employees-messages-737-max-investigation-simulator-crash

banie01

L1011 wrote: »

I honestly think they'll never enter passenger service. The floor/seating rail issue that's being lost in the noise may be financially insurmountable (as in building a new aircraft is cheaper) and they could end up being nice cheap box shifters for the parcels firms.

I've thought that since the 2nd crash and the rumblings began regarding MCAS design and implementation issues raised by the test pilots.

As time passes and more of Boeing's ineptitude comes to light, it is less and less likely to ever return to service.

This is not just an optics issue, the amount of changes made that were grandfathered in makes the airframe as it stands uncertifiable without a separate type cert.

Based on all the issues raised to date and current certification requirements.
This is not possible.

Shedite27

L1011 wrote: »

No, there is an identified problem that the seat rails are not up to the required G forces, which is likely not fixable without reeengineering the entire floor. The deep dive is finding more and more little bits and pieces

Any articles on that? Had a google but can't find anything

LiamaDelta

L1011 wrote: »

I honestly think they'll never enter passenger service. The floor/seating rail issue that's being lost in the noise may be financially insurmountable (as in building a new aircraft is cheaper) and they could end up being nice cheap box shifters for the parcels firms.

I agree. and this constant drip-drip of new problems is really undermining my confidence in it. I'd consider myself fairly pragmatic and generally fully supportive that once regulators pass it, it's fine. But I think I'll be actively avoiding the max for a while if it does come back. I'll certainly be listening to the EASA and not the FAA.

Mebuntu

twinytwo wrote: »

I for one will never set foot on a max

People said that after the DC10 crashes and others said the same about the A320 after a number of early high-profile crashes/incidents including a calamitous demo by one of their top pilots at an airshow.

I think the biggest question of all with the MAX is - given what we already know, let alone what we don't know, will there be anyone who will be willing/brave enough to put their signature on a dotted line?

Bob24

Mebuntu wrote: »

I think the biggest question of all with the MAX is - given what we already know, let alone what we don't know, will there be anyone who will be willing/brave enough to put their signature on a dotted line?

Yes good point; whoever signs it off will be under immense pressure if anything goes wrong. They’ll want to 100% sure without any doubt, and I don’t know if it is possible.

Captain_Crash

Mebuntu wrote: »

People said that after the DC10 crashes and others said the same about the A320 after a number of early high-profile crashes/incidents including a calamitous demo by one of their top pilots at an airshow.

I think the biggest question of all with the MAX is - given what we already know, let alone what we don't know, will there be anyone who will be willing/brave enough to put their signature on a dotted line?

The DC10 did suffer from its early issues and although flew successfully for many years it had lost a lot of ground to the L1011.

The early A320 issues are a different matter altogether. This was a new type with a new type cert and airlines knew sims and training would be required. The crash at the airshow (which I presume your referring to) was pilot error and the aircraft acted just fine. No changes were required to the aircraft after the crash, just more emphasis on the autoland systems.

With the MAX a huge selling point was the whole same type cert malarkey. Airlines didn’t sign up to new sims and new type carts, with the A320 they did.

Tomrota

Yet more and more crap just comes out about this aircraft every few days. Does anyone have a compilation of all the things and alleged crap that’s come out about this aircraft? I literally see it in the news articles every few days since it was grounded.

I’ve heard a lot of regular people I know who don’t follow aviation talk about this aircraft in conversation and on social media. I’m not so convinced that people will fly on it so easily, if it gets back to service in 2020 that is.

Social media has such a large effect and there was one article in particular about how Ryanair won’t let you know whether you’re flying on an NG or a Max which gathered a lot of attention from regular people in my life who said they wouldn’t be booking with Ryanair for sure as a result. Obviously after a few years, it’ll all die down but it will have a lot of problems at the start in my opinion.

This situation is truly unprecedented.

Nijmegen

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/business/boeing-dennis-muilenburg-severance.html
$62.2 million golden handshake for the now former CEOs efforts. The guy who ran commercial airplanes also got $14.75m. Both of them forfeited other awards but frankly when you’re getting those kinds of payouts...

Bob24

Nijmegen wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/business/boeing-dennis-muilenburg-severance.html
$62.2 million golden handshake for the now former CEOs efforts. The guy who ran commercial airplanes also got $14.75m. Both of them forfeited other awards but frankly when you’re getting those kinds of payouts...

He and the company will argue this was just part of his contract and enforcing an employment contract is nothing to talk about.

But nonetheless most of the working/middle class which is starting to revolt in many western countries will see this and find it obscene that any such payout can be included in a contract and regardless of performance (everyone will agree his management lead to awful human and financial consequences).

I think it is very symptomatic of what is currently breaking-up western societies.

Tenzor07

Bob24 wrote: »

He and the company will argue this was just part of his contract and enforcing an employment contract is nothing to talk about.

Yes, after his 34 years with Boeing he's contractually entitled to that payout he was vested in, Boeing did not give him a $30million payout that was not vested. If Boeing didn't pay him then he'd sue them in court and potentially get an even higher payout.

Is it right? Legally Yes, morally No.

As far as I see in the News this is pretty standard corporate operations for U.S and probably international company CEO's.

Nijmegen

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yes, after his 34 years with Boeing he's contractually entitled to that payout he was vested in, Boeing did not give him a $30million payout that was not vested. If Boeing didn't pay him then he'd sue them in court and potentially get an even higher payout.

Is it right? Legally Yes, morally No.

As far as I see in the News this is pretty standard corporate operations for U.S and probably international company CEO's.

It is. The lack of any comeback for really poor performance is a difficult issue to sort. But as noted above, this sort of thing doesn’t help allay the “us and them” nature of the world these days re the elites who it seems are happy to run ordinary people into the ground for a few quid.

MJohnston

It’s pretty standard capitalism to never punish the highest earners.
Regular workers make mistakes, they get fired. Execs make mistakes, regular workers get fired.

Hotblack Desiato

L1011 wrote: »

No, there is an identified problem that the seat rails are not up to the required G forces, which is likely not fixable without reeengineering the entire floor.

How does it differ from an NG floor? Could the NG be implicated?

And you may well be right about the existing MAXes becoming freighters - like when MD-11s were no longer acceptable for passenger service they got relegated to freight, with all that implies. The safety record of freighters is significantly worse than passenger airliners because of the way they are operated (and, it has to be said, outside of the EU the substandard operators who often fly them)

banie01

Proposed fine of $5.4bln $5.4mln for non-conforming slat tracks on @178 Max that had entered service.

https://news.aviation-safety.net/2020/01/12/faa-proposes-5-4-million-civil-penalty-against-boeing-over-nonconforming-slat-tracks-on-737-max/

Boeing really are enduring a shítstorm of epic proportions.

Tomrota

banie01 wrote: »

Proposed fine of $5.4bln for non-conforming slat tracks on @178 Max that had entered service.

https://news.aviation-safety.net/2020/01/12/faa-proposes-5-4-million-civil-penalty-against-boeing-over-nonconforming-slat-tracks-on-737-max/

Boeing really are enduring a shítstorm of epic proportions.

That’s million, which is nothing to Boeing.

Tomrota

banie01 wrote: »

Proposed fine of $5.4bln for non-conforming slat tracks on @178 Max that had entered service.

https://news.aviation-safety.net/2020/01/12/faa-proposes-5-4-million-civil-penalty-against-boeing-over-nonconforming-slat-tracks-on-737-max/

Boeing really are enduring a shítstorm of epic proportions.

That’s million, which is nothing to Boeing.

banie01

Tomrota wrote: »

That’s million, which is nothing to Boeing.

Apologies.
My aggregator gave the headline as a bln

Agreed that $5.4mln is not a lot in the context of Boeing's pockets.

It does speak a lot to Boeing's QC and QA process and is in addition to the earlier $3.9mln fine imposed for this issue.

blackwhite

Ryanair speculation they might take MAX deliveries in March/April.

Sounds optimistic to me - but maybe they’ve been given some indications from the US

banie01

blackwhite wrote: »

Ryanair speculation they might take MAX deliveries in March/April.

Sounds optimistic to me - but maybe they’ve been given some indications from the US

Given that the Boeing are trying to push new Sims and training as part of the fix.
I'd be very curious as to how Ryanair are going to manage that training?

FAA clearance won't mean squat if EASA stick to their guns on the certification, so I really interested in how any q1 or q2 delivery schedule or return to flight plays out.

josip

The Boeing attitude to earlier sim requests was concerning.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/01/10/boeing-persuaded-lion-air-to-forgo-simulator-training-for-737-max-pilots/

“Now frigging [Lion Air] may need a sim to fly the Max, and maybe because of their own stupidity,” the pilot wrote in an instant message (pdf, p. 33). “I’m scrambling to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots.”

cnocbui

That is very disturbing. Jail the barstewards.

Inquitus

josip wrote: »

The Boeing attitude to earlier sim requests was concerning.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/01/10/boeing-persuaded-lion-air-to-forgo-simulator-training-for-737-max-pilots/

Especially damning when Boeing and some US Senators questioned the proficiency of the Lion Air pilots in the wake of the crash.

Bob24

Inquitus wrote: »

Especially damning when Boeing and some US Senators questioned the proficiency of the Lion Air pilots in the wake of the crash.

Yes - actively discourage an airline from training its pilots, and then blame them for not having trained them enough, at this stage I don't know how worse it could look :-/

Quin_Dub

All of the leaked info just shows an organisation wholly focussed on profits above all else.

A fundamentally broken corporate culture - Hard to know how they fix that without a wholesale clear-out across all levels of leadership.

Inquitus

Quin_Dub wrote: »

All of the leaked info just shows an organisation wholly focussed on profits above all else.

A fundamentally broken corporate culture - Hard to know how they fix that without a wholesale clear-out across all levels of leadership.

Yep, the new CEO is part of the same culture that brought the Max to this point as well, he's hardly a new executive trying to sweep the decks clear.

David Calhoun, Boeing's new CEO, will receive a $7 million bonus if the company completes certain goals under his leadership, including bringing the 737 MAX back into service.

https://onemileatatime.com/boeing-ceo-bonus/

Bob24

Inquitus wrote: »

Yep, the new CEO is part of the same culture that brought the Max to this point as well, he's hardly a new executive trying to sweep the decks clear.

Yes, but I have to say I think even the best qualified and well-intended outsider would struggle to fix the issues if appointed CEO.

Once this type of behaviour is so ingrained and endemic within management (and some of the staff), going against the flow is very hard.

Inquitus

AA has now pushed scheduling any Max flights until June, they have continually being pushing this back, but it seems as though it may well be at least late spring or early summer before the Max is able to fly passengers again.

wetoutside19

Quin_Dub wrote: »

All of the leaked info just shows an organisation wholly focussed on profits above all else..

As I understand it these are not leaked, Boeing had to hand these documents over to the FAA and as part of their new and improved transparency strategy published them.

Inquitus

wetoutside19 wrote: »

As I understand it these are not leaked, Boeing had to hand these documents over to the FAA and as part of their new and improved transparency strategy published them.

They decided to release them before the new CEO took the position to get them out of the way and try and give him a clean sheet in case they leaked in future, it was a risk/reward decision they took, not anything done out of their interest in transparency!

Inquitus

New issue found in startup system check software, Analysts reckon the overall hit to Boeing is in the $20bn range now, excluding compensation to Airlines and dead Passengers:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/17/business/boeing-737-max-computer-glitch/index.html

During a recent technical review involving the Max, Boeing observed an issue with the plane's flight computers, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The source said the issue is not related to the software revisions Boeing made to address the cause of two fatal crashes that killed 346 people, and would not occur during flight. The Max has been grounded since March following the second of those crashes.

The computer issue was observed when booting up the computers on a Max and involves the so-called software power up monitoring function, which checks for anomalies when turning on the computers. It's similar to the steps any computer might make when first turned on. The source said the process of turning on the computers is performed when the plane is on the ground, rather than in flight.

The source said the test was intended to find any issues like this one and that Boeing would fix the problem.
Boeing has been working on a software fix for the safety system that is believed to be the cause of the two fatal crashes. The source could not say whether this latest issue would impact the company's submission of the software changes to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Other sources:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/software-issues-delay-return-boeings-737-max/story?id=68357961
https://apnews.com/c8cfe82b6ab25a788b42eab1e8e47a3a
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-finds-new-software-problem-that-could-complicate-737-max-return-11579290347

banie01

Inquitus wrote: »

New issue found in startup system check software, Analysts reckon the overall hit to Boeing is in the $20bn range now, excluding compensation to Airlines and dead Passengers:
]

I was going to post these last night when it broke, but didn't want to come across as a serious anti-boeing head.

I am seriously anti- poor QC, unsafe airframes and poor engineering.

What is quite interesting on another bad news day for Boeing is the continuing issues with the KC-46 and the USAF dissatisfaction and snag lists.
Letting aside the remote vision and cargo floor issues...
Over 500 "deficiencies" have been logged to date and the programme is years behind schedule.

The Airforce must be kicking themselves the Airbus bid "failed" at this point

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-17/boeing-s-calhoun-warned-by-air-force-that-it-s-not-happy-either

The tanker also has started combat testing conducted by Pentagon evaluators and so far “over 500 deficiencies have been tracked to date and we’ve only just begun” that evaluation, Goldfein wrote. A Boeing official said none of the deficiencies are of the most serious category.

Goldfein told Calhoun he expects lawmakers to question during fiscal 2021 budget hearings why the Air Force continues to take delivery of an aircraft “not meeting multiple key performance parameters and a host of other requirements.”

Without a change in course, Goldfein wrote, “we will not be able to answer positively and we will have to acknowledge our serious concerns in two areas -- trust and safety

Inquitus

banie01 wrote: »

The Airforce must be kicking themselves the Airbus bid "failed" at this point

They basically reran the tender process over and over again until Boeing eventually won, on the constantly tweaked to favour Boeing criteria, so at the end of the day I don't have much sympathy for the USAF at this juncture!

banie01

Inquitus wrote: »

They basically reran the tender process over and over again until Boeing eventually won, on the constantly tweaked to favour Boeing criteria, so at the end of the day I don't have much sympathy for the USAF at this juncture!

That was kinda my point.
It's actually staggering however that Boeing took what was portrayed as basically being a COTS system with near immediate availability in the 767 and its military variants already in service and have managed to fúck it up this much!

padjocollins

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-17/new-software-flaw-identified-in-boeing-s-grounded-737-max-jet

HTCOne

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/20/737-max-crisis-boeing-seeks-to-borrow-10-billion-or-more.html

Boeing seeking a $10 Billion loan from creditors due Max crisis. The compensation claims from affected customers haven’t even landed yet.

GM228

HTCOne wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/20/737-max-crisis-boeing-seeks-to-borrow-10-billion-or-more.html

Boeing seeking a $10 Billion loan from creditors due Max crisis. The compensation claims from affected customers haven’t even landed yet.

Seems to be a two year delayed draw loan meaning they may not even use it, but I'd suspect it's in preparation for this very reason as there seems to be no liquidity issues yet.