Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Options
1…2930323435…74

Comments

  • Options
    #932
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭billy few mates


    You can't just stop a production line when it's in full swing. Managing the flow of logistics is a science that's planned to the minute, a lot of the materials are either already on dock or in transit to the factory. It's probably more sensible to keep the production line in full flow and plan for a gradual wind down if the fix wasn't immediate. Of course the corollary of that is the storage problem for the completed air frames once they're actually completed.
    Once the fix has been properly certified and tested it will be relatively straightforward to implement, once they're back in the air and the news cycle has been replaced the operators come looking for them again...


  • Options
    #933
    Blut2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,956 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Slowing the production line down is a big step. I think it points to the required fix here being bigger, and taking a lot longer, than Boeing are letting on.

    I doubt the slowdown its because of cancellations though, just because the order book is so large. I'd wager its that they don't want large numbers of airplanes building up to be stored at their own cost while this "fix" process drags on.


  • Options
    #934
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    The more that comes out of the woodwork on this, the less chance I see of a quick fix, given that the original fix was done for all the wrong reasons.

    The FAA are very much also on the rack over this situation, and I am beginning to wonder if the end result of this mess will be that the 737Max will end up being redesignated as (for lack of a better model number) a 738, and for what are apparently good reasons, the type rating and training will have to be different from the 737 family.

    If it happens, part of that rebrand will also mean massive changes to the whole concept of MCAS, and it may even result in Boeing having to make hardware changes to the airframe to overcome the problems that are inherent in the existing Max structure, to reduce or eliminate the problems that MCAS was supposed to fix.

    I wonder if the whole concept of MCAS is now so discredited that there is no fix to it that will be acceptable to the industry or the regulators, and if that is the case, Boeing have a much bigger problem than just slowing down the production line for a while, we can only guess at the behind the scenes discussions that are happening with the larger customers like Southwest and Ryanair, who are going to be very worried about how they are going to manage this issue going forward, and how they will reassure their customers that the aircraft is safe.

    A change of this magnitude will raise howls of protest from the beancounters in the airlines, and cause all manner of problems for Boeing during the transition, and has the potential to disrupt airline schedules for a long time, but the nature and depth of this problem seems to be such that there is no easy or quick fix that will overcome the very real issues that are now out in the open.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Options
    #935
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,956 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    I predict Boeing shares will tank more than 5% on Monday when the market opens.


  • Options
    #936
    Jacovs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Boeing has already announced this would be the case, and that it would be retrofitted to all planes which are already in service at no extra cost for the airline.

    Wonder if they are also refunding those airlines who chose to pay for the optional extra on the already operational aircraft.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #937
    Noxegon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,519 ✭✭✭Noxegon


    I’m honestly surprised that Ryanair hasn’t used this situation to save a lot of money on their MAX order. Though maybe they too are going for the wait and see approach.

    I develop Superior Solitaire when I'm not procrastinating on boards.ie.



  • Options
    #938
    Brennus335
    Registered Users Posts: 168 ✭✭Brennus335


    Noxegon wrote: »
    I’m honestly surprised that Ryanair hasn’t used this situation to save a lot of money on their MAX order. Though maybe they too are going for the wait and see approach.

    Or planning a repeat of the "we raped the f*ckers" episode.


  • Options
    #939
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Jacovs wrote: »
    Wonder if they are also refunding those airlines who chose to pay for the optional extra on the already operational aircraft.

    I am not clear whether the optional package to see the warnings was a once- off payment are a subscription. In the second scenario, they’ll just stop charging for it. Otherwise I’d imaging there will be commercial discussions and if Boeing wants to sell more planes to those airlines they’ll have a weak hand.


  • Options
    #940
    Jeff2
    Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Jeff2


    They have moved the disagree light from the pilot overhead position and integrated it into the panel in front of the pilot.


  • Options
    #941
    jasper100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 455 ✭✭jasper100


    cnocbui wrote: »
    They didn't say it, but what they said was illogical nonsense. They said they were slowing production while they concentrate on software. Can you explain to me why you would have to do that - the connection between the two? In what way does slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies, improve their capacity to write the software?

    My son is a software developer. If I were to say I wasn't going to mow the lawn this weekend so that he could increase his output of lines of code you ought to say WTF?, because there is no logical connection between the activities.

    What I am trying to get at is there must be some reason why they are slowing production, but since that function has no bearing on software development, why? Are they perhaps thinking the 'software' fix isn't going to be enough and that they will have to make actual changes to the aircraft?

    Presumably software, and hardware, engineers are involved in installing testing and debugging the computer systems in the planes. By slowing production some of these people can be transferred to working on solving the problem.

    By slowing production there will be less demand for people in the it department, logistics, accounts etc. etc. and they suitably qualified people can be transferred into solving the problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #942
    Storm 10
    Registered Users Posts: 5,905 ✭✭✭Storm 10


    If they do come back with a fix I will tell you it's one Boeing aircraft I will never step into regardless of what they say about it's safety .


  • Options
    #943
    coastwatch
    Registered Users Posts: 908 ✭✭✭coastwatch


    cnocbui wrote: »
    They didn't say it, but what they said was illogical nonsense. They said they were slowing production while they concentrate on software. Can you explain to me why you would have to do that - the connection between the two? In what way does slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies, improve their capacity to write the software?

    My son is a software developer. If I were to say I wasn't going to mow the lawn this weekend so that he could increase his output of lines of code you ought to say WTF?, because there is no logical connection between the activities.

    What I am trying to get at is there must be some reason why they are slowing production, but since that function has no bearing on software development, why? Are they perhaps thinking the 'software' fix isn't going to be enough and that they will have to make actual changes to the aircraft?

    I'd say the slow down in production is more about avoiding some of the cost of producing and storing new 737max while the fleet is grounded. Apparently airlines are looking at 6 month leasing options on alternative aircraft.


  • Options
    #944
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    cnocbui wrote: »
    They didn't say it, but what they said was illogical nonsense. They said they were slowing production while they concentrate on software. Can you explain to me why you would have to do that - the connection between the two? In what way does slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies, improve their capacity to write the software?

    It makes perfect sense. No one is saying that slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies will improve their capacity to write the software. You are adding 2 to 2 and getting 5 there, and asking why is Boeing adding 2 to 2 and getting 5. They arent.

    All the parts must come together to have a sellable plane. The physical, and the software. At the moment they are missing certified safe software that corrects with confidence the problem. So cannot sell planes. But making physical planes is a very expensive business, in components and labour. Which if they were to make them, still cannot be sold without the software. So to avoid a cashflow crunch, and the tieing up of huge working capital in hardware that cannot be sold and pay for itself, you slow back the purchase of parts, and manufacture of the planes. Until such time as the software become usable again, can be installed, and planes sold to earn revenue and ramp up production again.


  • Options
    #945
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Storm 10 wrote: »
    If they do come back with a fix I will tell you it's one Boeing aircraft I will never step into regardless of what they say about it's safety .

    Ah, you will. We all will. There will be thousands of them over the next decades and anyone flying will be unable to avoid them without major cut off their nose to spite their face inconvenience.


  • Options
    #946
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,147 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The production rate slowdown will be for many many reasons including space and also reducing outgoings to suppliers - not to get mechanists writing or testing software!

    They will rapidly run out of storage space if they continue at full pace and the logistics of storing elsewhere will be troublesome when deliveries resume


  • Options
    #947
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    It makes perfect sense. No one is saying that slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies will improve their capacity to write the software. You are adding 2 to 2 and getting 5 there, and asking why is Boeing adding 2 to 2 and getting 5. They arent.

    Actually the original statement which triggered the discussion is that Boeing is “slowing production of the 737 MAX so it can focus its attention on fixing the flight-control software”. Pretty clear inference that slowing the former will improve work on the later.

    Indeed as you said there are possibly logistics and financial reasons behind the decision to slow down production, maybe related to the fact that they know the the fix will take a while to be delivered and they don’t want to build and store planes in the meantime. But that’s pretty much what the OP was saying: the statement linking the slow down as a way to focus on the software fix probably isn’t that genuine.


  • Options
    #948
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭billy few mates


    Storm 10 wrote: »
    If they do come back with a fix I will tell you it's one Boeing aircraft I will never step into regardless of what they say about it's safety .

    Never say never, in ten years time you'll have your work cut out trying to avoid travelling on one.


  • Options
    #949
    mickdw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,317 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    Id have no issue flying on them. All modern aircraft have flight envelope protection systems that behave in similar fashion. It appears that this is just a very shoddily designed system that needs to be redone.
    If they can build in adequate redundancy into this system via further sensor inputs and sanity checks across other aircraft systems and perhaps make this a less powerful system and indeed make it fail towards non action as opposed to crashing the plane, it will be a safe aircraft.
    Hopefully making these changes will deem it necessary to introduce a suitable level of pilot training on this new type.

    On a related note, personally, I'd still be wary of flying on the dreamliner since it's issues but most seem to have no issues jumping on them.


  • Options
    #950
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,147 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    billy few mates wrote: »
    Never say never, in ten years time you'll have your work cut out trying to avoid travelling on one.

    It's relatively easy to avoid flying a 737 out of Ireland right now should you want to. If you have some reason, no matter how irrational, to avoid a MAX, it'll probably be just as easy.


  • Options
    #951
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭billy few mates


    L1011 wrote: »
    It's relatively easy to avoid flying a 737 out of Ireland right now should you want to. If you have some reason, no matter how irrational, to avoid a MAX, it'll probably be just as easy.
    There are (or were) over 350 of them in service and an order book of over 5000, once confidence has been restored those orders are likely going to be filled. I've flown on them several times and would have no problem flying on them again once this issue has been resolved. With the regulatory scrutiny these things are going to be under for the next few years they'll be the safest aircraft in the sky...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #952
    cml387
    Registered Users Posts: 8,398 ✭✭✭cml387


    One expert speaking on Radio 4 a few days ago made an interesting point.
    When the Boeing 727 was new, it suffered four fatal crashes and confidence was lost to the extent that airlines had serious doubts about the aircraft and travel agents demanded the cancellation of 727 bookings

    In those days (the early 60's) there wasn't the huge media focus there is now and Boeing revised and updated pilot training on the aircraft.

    The 727 went on to be a very successful aircraft.

    I suspect the same will happen with the max.

    However what needs to change is that the FAA's oversight of the industry in the US must be strengthened, something which goes against the grain of the current thinking in Washington that the private sector knows best and the state should back off interfering in business.


  • Options
    #953
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    billy few mates wrote: »
    Never say never, in ten years time you'll have your work cut out trying to avoid travelling on one.
    In ten years if we've had no further accidents that we can directly blame on Boeing's penny pinching and FAA incompetence then most straight thinking people will have no issue flying on them. If on the other hand a different fatal flaw is found that can be attributed to these reasons this plane and possibly Boeing's place as a commercial airplane manufacturer will be at risk.


  • Options
    #954
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    There is an additional concern that has been raised in recent days, which may also apply to earlier generations. It is possible that above 250 Kts, it is hard or even impossible to move the trim wheel by hand in some circumstances, due to the loads on it. If that does prove to be the case, there are going to have to be some significant changes made to ensure that this issue is also addressed, in that the Max aircraft that have crashed have significantly exceeded these speeds.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Options
    #955
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    cml387 wrote: »
    One expert speaking on Radio 4 a few days ago made an interesting point.
    When the Boeing 727 was new, it suffered four fatal crashes and confidence was lost to the extent that airlines had serious doubts about the aircraft and travel agents demanded the cancellation of 727 bookings

    In those days (the early 60's) there wasn't the huge media focus there is now and Boeing revised and updated pilot training on the aircraft.

    The 727 went on to be a very successful aircraft.

    I suspect the same will happen with the max.

    However what needs to change is that the FAA's oversight of the industry in the US must be strengthened, something which goes against the grain of the current thinking in Washington that the private sector knows best and the state should back off interfering in business.

    Am i right that there wouldn’t have been any alternative option for airlines and customers then? (as the A320 would be today)


  • Options
    #956
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,147 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Am i right that there wouldn’t have been any alternative option for airlines and customers then? (as the A320 would be today)

    There were vastly more options back then than now. Not exact size wise but the DC9 and HS Trident should both have been on sale as similars. Would need to check exact era but there was likely one domestic and two European alternatives at least


  • Options
    #957
    Jeff2
    Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Jeff2


    The only reason the plane needs the system is because of disign fault.

    The plane is out of balance and they use a computer and sensors to rectify this rather than developing a new plane that would need to pass all the test.
    This was just a cheap way to get around regulations.


  • Options
    #958
    ChikiChiki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭ChikiChiki


    Jeff2 wrote: »
    The only reason the plane needs the system is because of disign fault.

    The plane is out of balance and they use a computer and sensors to rectify this rather than developing a new plane that would need to pass all the test.
    This was just a cheap way to get around regulations.

    That is exactly why I will never get on one. Fully expect more of these to go down if that fundamental flaw is not fixed and the aircraft are back in the skies.


  • Options
    #959
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Jeff2 wrote: »
    The only reason the plane needs the system is because of disign fault.

    The plane is out of balance and they use a computer and sensors to rectify this rather than developing a new plane that would need to pass all the test.
    This was just a cheap way to get around regulations.

    I would call it wrong design choice rather than design fault, as it was done on purpose and isn’t something that was overlooked.

    But yes agree with the rest of your post.


  • Options
    #960
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,684 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Jeff2 wrote:
    The plane is out of balance and they use a computer and sensors to rectify this rather than developing a new plane that would need to pass all the test. This was just a cheap way to get around regulations.


    Out of balance? What does that mean exactly? Are you suggesting the centre of gravity is too far back causing the nose to point up?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #961
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Out of balance? What does that mean exactly? Are you suggesting the centre of gravity is too far back causing the nose to point up?

    Compared to previous generations the engines are larger to increase fuel efficiency, and positioned more forward and higher up on the plane’s wings.

    This change causes the plane’s nose to naturally point up in certain situations which needs to be compensated for.


Advertisement