Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Nijmegen

banie01 wrote: »

The Seattle Times and it's aviation and business reporters have won a Pulitzer for their sterling and continuing work on the 737 Max and it's issues.

www.seattletimes.com/inside-the-times/seattle-times-wins-pulitzer-prize-for-boeing-737-max-coverage/%3famp=1

Link goes to a 404, maybe they changed it - this works https://www.seattletimes.com/inside-the-times/seattle-times-wins-pulitzer-prize-for-boeing-737-max-coverage/

Great to see strong journalism even in a "company town". Shows the folks who live in Seattle might have more of an interest in the long term viability of a company doing the right thing than management have shown themselves to be.

banie01

Nijmegen wrote: »

Link goes to a 404, maybe they changed it - this works https://www.seattletimes.com/inside-the-times/seattle-times-wins-pulitzer-prize-for-boeing-737-max-coverage/

Great to see strong journalism even in a "company town". Shows the folks who live in Seattle might have more of an interest in the long term viability of a company doing the right thing than management have shown themselves to be.

Thanks for the fixed link Nijmegen.

Your observation on their journalism is spot on IMO.

Their efforts to shine a light on Boeing in Seattle really need to be appreciated in the context of just how much Boeing control and Influence in Washington state.

That the paper ran the story must have given the advertising and finance depts pause for thought.

It may not seem it from my posts on this thread sometimes.
But I have a huge grá for Boeing, they are a company that for so long took risk.
But innovative, well researched and engineered risk that developed and delivered some fantastically innovative aircraft and systems.

Not the current style of quite ironically "risk" adverse management that has led to accountants dictating evolution of design rather than allowing Boeing do, what Boeing has so long been one of the best.

cnocbui

I'd say the 787 being built from carbon fibre composite was innovative for a builder of airliners. Of course sailplanes lead the way over two decades ago.

I'd like to see a manufacturer depart from the long thin tube with wings sticking out the side WW2 bomber paradigm and see someone give the flying wing a go if the efficiencies are as advertised and safety and stability aren't compromised.

padjocollins

https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/dominic-gates-steve-miletich-mike-baker-and-lewis-kamb-seattle-times

Fritzbox

Boeing have begun producing the 737 MAX once again in Washington state. They must be confident that the aircraft will receive its certification in the very near future.

markpb

Fritzbox wrote: »

Boeing have begun producing the 737 MAX once again in Washington state. They must be confident that the aircraft will receive its certification in the very near future.

I wonder if there will be any political pressure on the FAA to approve the plane? Getting Boeing manufacturing again would be a nice jobs boost at the minute and politicians do love a good news story, especially when we're teetering at the edge of a recession.

Fritzbox

markpb wrote: »

I wonder if there will be any political pressure on the FAA to approve the plane? Getting Boeing manufacturing again would be a nice jobs boost at the minute and politicians do love a good news story, especially when we're teetering at the edge of a recession.

If there was political pressure applied it obviously hasn't worked - the plane has been grounded since March 2019 - 15 months - and it could still be another month or 2 before it does get full clearance from the FAA. It is actually taking several months longer for the MAX to gain its certification second time round than it did for its initial certification in 2017.

The first flight took place on January 29, 2016, at Renton Municipal Airport...
...The 737 MAX gained Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification on March 8, 2017.[11] It was approved by the EASA on March 27, 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Flight_testing_and_certification

L1011

Resuming at 21 frames/month initially and then dropping to 14 frames/month the latter half of the year - presumably as they've parts stock to burn.

Its a tiny fraction of where they expected to be now (56, I think - up from 52 which was the old norm) but I'm not convinced its an even vaguely good idea. Its just going to increase the number of non flying frames that need upgrades IF the plane is allowed fly again.

Fritzbox

L1011 wrote: »

Resuming at 21 frames/month initially and then dropping to 14 frames/month the latter half of the year - presumably as they've parts stock to burn.

Its a tiny fraction of where they expected to be now (56, I think - up from 52 which was the old norm) but I'm not convinced its an even vaguely good idea. Its just going to increase the number of non flying frames that need upgrades IF the plane is allowed fly again.

What makes you think the MAX won't be certified? Are you normally so sceptical whenever any new airliner is undergoing certification?

Hotblack Desiato

cheerleading for Boeing again I see. You could just read the detailed explanations which were given to you on previous occasions

Fritzbox

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

cheerleading for Boeing again I see. You could just read the detailed explanations which were given to you on previous occasions

What? I don't work for Boeing or have any shares in the company, ultimately why would I care if the MAX is certified or not - I'm here on this thread because I just find the whole topic fascinating.

Detailed explanations as to why the Boeing 737 MAX will not be certified by the FAA or AESA in this thread? I doubt if they are anyway convincing, or at least it's a pity the Boeing Aircraft Corporation hasn't paid attention to this thread, it would save them the bother - and the loss of a lot of money - of actually restarting production?

L1011

Fritzbox wrote: »

What makes you think the MAX won't be certified? Are you normally so sceptical whenever any new airliner is undergoing certification?

If it was actually a new airliner I'd be nowhere near as sceptical

Trying to work around all the issues found in the deep dive in to a 50+ year old design with excessive grandfathering of changes is approaching implausible.

Blut2

L1011 wrote: »

Resuming at 21 frames/month initially and then dropping to 14 frames/month the latter half of the year - presumably as they've parts stock to burn.

Its a tiny fraction of where they expected to be now (56, I think - up from 52 which was the old norm) but I'm not convinced its an even vaguely good idea. Its just going to increase the number of non flying frames that need upgrades IF the plane is allowed fly again.

+1

With a few airlines announcing bankruptcies already, and presumably a lot more to come, and the airlines that are surviving all cutting capacity massively, all signs point to the market for airframes being fairly well saturated for the next year at least anyway.

I'm not sure how thrilled any airlines with MAX orders will be to take delivery of the planes, even if the plane is re-certified soon.

funkey_monkey

Is Boeings finalised solution for the MCAS known yet?

GM228

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Is Boeings finalised solution for the MCAS known yet?

Not yet, but this is what Boeing released a while back:-

The additional layers of protection that are being proposed include:

Flight control system will now compare inputs from both AOA sensors. If the sensors disagree by 5.5 degrees or more with the flaps retracted, MCAS will not activate. An indicator on the flight deck display will alert the pilots.

If MCAS is activated in non-normal conditions, it will only provide one input for each elevated AOA event. There are no known or envisioned failure conditions where MCAS will provide multiple inputs.

MCAS can never command more stabilizer input than can be counteracted by the flight crew pulling back on the column. The pilots will continue to always have the ability to override MCAS and manually control the airplane.

Van.Bosch

GM228 wrote: »

Not yet, but this is what Boeing released a while back:-

It’s mad the system was ever designed any way other than that, especially the last one.

GM228

Fritzbox wrote: »

If there was political pressure applied it obviously hasn't worked - the plane has been grounded since March 2019 - 15 months - and it could still be another month or 2 before it does get full clearance from the FAA. It is actually taking several months longer for the MAX to gain its certification second time round than it did for its initial certification in 2017.

A month or two?

Extremely unlikely, the latest multi million $ problem to fix (the wiring) has not even been agreed to yet, as far as I know, will take months to re-wire them also.

john boye

Fritzbox wrote: »

It is actually taking several months longer for the MAX to gain its certification second time round than it did for its initial certification in 2017.

Well yeah, they're actually looking at it this time. And finding lots of issues.

Hotblack Desiato

So if both AoA sensors freeze in the same position (and this has happened when aircraft are washed or de-iced improperly) are you still f**ked?

The manual trim wheel is a joke, especially as it's smaller on the MAX than the NG.

Shedite27

Boeing aiming to get the 737Max recertification flight in the next 3 weeks
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/boeing-aims-for-737-max-recertification-flight-by-the-end-of-june.html

Blut2

Shedite27 wrote: »

Boeing aiming to get the 737Max recertification flight in the next 3 weeks
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/boeing-aims-for-737-max-recertification-flight-by-the-end-of-june.html

Lucky for them we're at a point in time where theres a booming aviation industry with huge demand for new airplanes, that'll be more than happy to take delivery of the hundreds of currently parked up MAXs, as well as any more that roll off the production line, as soon as they can get their hands on them. Oh err... :pac:

I really have no idea how they're going to shift the MAX now, even if they ever do finally get it re-certified against all odds.

Fritzbox

Blut2 wrote: »

I really have no idea how they're going to shift the MAX now, even if they ever do finally get it re-certified against all odds.

Slowly, I presume - just like their competitors.

ForestFire

Fritzbox wrote: »

Slowly, I presume - just like their competitors.

Things have changed though...a lot....

Before COVID Boeing's competitors would not have been able to take on additional orders, on a large scale, so it was not really an alternative for those already primarily with Boeing to change, if they wanted aircraft.

Post COVID, there is going to be less planes in the air, in general, less demand for new aircraft and the i'm sure Airbus will be in a much better position now to fight and accept any new business going and eat into Boeing customer base.

john boye

I hope they have a backup plan for if/when they can't get it on the same type rating as the NG. There's still very little to suggest that it will be.

Fritzbox

ForestFire wrote: »

Post COVID, there is going to be less planes in the air, in general, less demand for new aircraft and the i'm sure Airbus will be in a much better position now to fight and accept any new business going and eat into Boeing customer base.

How will Airbus be in a better position than Boeing to gain new business? Which airlines are defecting from Boeing to Airbus? AIG and Ryanair are still interested in buying the MAX, eventually...

john boye

I'll hold my hands up if I'm wrong but IAG are (and have always been) about as interested in buying the max as I am.

Fritzbox

john boye wrote: »

I'll hold my hands up if I'm wrong but IAG are (and have always been) about as interested in buying the max as I am.

Well, AIG still have an order for the MAX waiting to be fulfilled - order made a very long time ago.
But wasn't Willie Walsh talking about another order in the last few months?

crisco10

Fritzbox wrote: »

Well, AIG still have an order for the MAX waiting to be fulfilled - order made a very long time ago.
But wasn't Willie Walsh talking about another order in the last few months?

I thought that was just-about-worth-the-paper-its-written-on Letter of Intent?

L1011

Fritzbox wrote: »

Well, AIG still have an order for the MAX waiting to be fulfilled - order made a very long time ago.
But wasn't Willie Walsh talking about another order in the last few months?

crisco10 wrote: »

I thought that was just-about-worth-the-paper-its-written-on Letter of Intent?

Yeah - LOI only that nobody except maybe a hopeful Boeing salesman thinks will ever progress beyond LOI.

Fritzbox

crisco10 wrote: »

I thought that was just-about-worth-the-paper-its-written-on Letter of Intent?

You mean the second potential order? Yes, it was probably no more than that?

L1011

Fritzbox wrote: »

You mean the second potential order? Yes, it was probably no more than that?

There is no order at all - there is just the LOI that nobody believes

Belfast

737 Max update 12 June "The Road to Re-Certification"

banie01

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways-boeing-737-max-cancellation/amp/

Another cancellation confirmed.
Qatar also firing a shot across the bow of both the big boys by warning that if deferral or delay of delivery isn't facilitated, that they will review their long term relationships with both...

A lot of (misplaced) confidence there in whatever Comac and the Russians may come up with.

HTCOne

banie01 wrote: »

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways-boeing-737-max-cancellation/amp/

Another cancellation confirmed.
Qatar also firing a shot across the bow of both the big boys by warning that if deferral or delay of delivery isn't facilitated, that they will review their long term relationships with both...

A lot of (misplaced) confidence there in whatever Comac and the Russians may come up with.

Their CEO is a circus clown. Good luck with your second hand IL-96s lads.

Fritzbox

Cityjet tried operating a Russian built plane, as did a leading Mexican airline - didn't work out well for either of them.

L1011

Fritzbox wrote: »

Cityjet tried operating a Russian built plane, as did a leading Mexican airline - didn't work out well for either of them.

Interjet are sufficiently jokeshop you can't call them "leading"; not that that makes the plane any better.

Crap engines and an awful parts/support supply chain are the SSJs main problems; never getting London City approved is the main reason Cityjet got rid that quickly.

HTCOne

We called it the Lada in ATC. Italian engine in a Russian body, with similar reliability reputation.

john boye

HTCOne wrote: »

Their CEO is a circus clown. Good luck with your second hand IL-96s lads.

Imagine the quality issues he'd find in those on delivery.

L1011

HTCOne wrote: »

We called it the Lada in ATC. Italian engine in a Russian body, with similar reliability reputation.

Ladas actually had a Russian engine in an Italian body, though. The original Fiat pushrod engine was deemed out of date and replaced with a Russian designed camshaft design.

Fritzbox

HTCOne wrote: »

We called it the Lada in ATC. Italian engine in a Russian body, with similar reliability reputation.

It's a French engine surely?

I mean the Superjet looks like a nice airliner and I'm sure that it may be the right aircraft for many airline companies around the world, should have good economics as well. It's a pity the quality control and aftersales service leaves a lot to be desired.

It doesn't bode too well for the prospects of the next Russian airliner in the pipeline: the MC-21.

HTCOne

L1011 wrote: »

Ladas actually had a Russian engine in an Italian body, though. The original Fiat pushrod engine was deemed out of date and replaced with a Russian designed camshaft design.

You are correct, and when I do a Google I discover that the SSJ has (half) Russian engines and parts of the fuselage, empennage etc are made by Alenia in Italy, who own/ed 25% of the programme....so that must be why it is a Lada.

banie01

not the MAX, but further indications of Boeing's QC issues.

Another KC-46 delivery delayed due to FOD in the fuel tanks.
At least this time it has being determined that it was not a production line issue (as with previous instances) but an issue with non-standard factory rework.
Which actually means, it was a production line issue and the attempt to repair it was botched too.

Their in process QC can't catch a break and aditional quality inspections before delivery only add large and non-revenue generating cost to an already fixed price contract.

FFVII

Do Boeing give a dam? They'll be saved regardless what they do.

banie01

In MAX news...
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-whistleblower-alleges-systemic-problems-with-737-max/

A Boeing engineer has written to US Senate outlining his belief that further systemic flaws with the MAX are endemic and that fixing MCAS won't cure a flawed design.

Has also confirmed he has been questioned by the FBI, which by inference would indicate a DoJ investigation into the current state of play.

The allégations that engineering concerns were over ruled in an effort to maintain cost and schedule targets could well be damning.

Blut2

Its just neverending with the MAX.

Someone posted here months ago (or maybe over a year at this stage...) that the most likely outcome they foresaw was the MAX eventually just being used as a cargo plane by FedEX, DHL etc - that it would never make it back into the skies as a passenger airline. The more this goes on, and the more the airlines now seem to be cutting schedules because of corona, the more that seems likely to me too.

Nijmegen

Corona will give them the cover to kill it, I'd say. There's gonna be such a reduction in airfleet requirement over the next few years and they can also get a bailout now under the blanket Corona-excuse.

Hotblack Desiato

L1011 wrote: »

Interjet are sufficiently jokeshop you can't call them "leading"; not that that makes the plane any better.

Crap engines and an awful parts/support supply chain are the SSJs main problems; never getting London City approved is the main reason Cityjet got rid that quickly.

The Moscow crash doesn't speak well of its structural integrity.

The last thing any passenger airline wants is another MD-11 where a slightly cocked up landing can turn into a fireball very quickly.

L1011

Interjet are now actually operating SSJs and only SSJs again as all the Airbus have gone back to the lessors!

Captain_Crash

I’ve heard that when alls working well, the SSJ’s are an excellent aircraft and it’s the aftercare and reliability that’s the real let down. Reminds me of a BMW I used to own haha

Fritzbox

L1011 wrote: »

Interjet are now actually operating SSJs and only SSJs again as all the Airbus have gone back to the lessors!

N
I don't think Interjet completely stopped operating their SSJ100s, just that they have only been able to fly a minority of aircraft due to seviceability issues.