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.