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…5051535556…74

Comments

  • Options
    #1562
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 68,015 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Its less worse than most of these type of shows. There's some talking heads that shouldn't be let near it, and some errors or bad use of language ("14 versions" implies 14 generations to most people, when its 4)


  • Options
    #1563
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭Fritzbox


    L1011 wrote: »
    Its less worse than most of these type of shows. There's some talking heads that shouldn't be let near it, and some errors or bad use of language ("14 versions" implies 14 generations to most people, when its 4)

    Most people wouldn't know that the Boeing 737 or any other airliner comes in "generations".
    There may well be 14 versions of the B737, if you are not including any of the military variants?:confused:


  • Options
    #1564
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Not sure if it has been mentioned, but Boeing may be hit with a $3.9M fine by the FAA for installing flat tracks which it knew were sub standard in 133 737s, the fine relates to the NGs only, but Boeing have apparently said the issue could also affect the MAXs.

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-hits-boeing-with-39-million-fine-for-slat-tra-462746/
    The fine relates only the slat tracks on 737NGs, not 737 Max, the FAA confirms.

    The FAA says the fine applies only to 737NGs. However, the issue may also have been present on 737 Max, Boeing has previously said.
    The company says it has already inspected and performed required work on all affected 737NGs and that it will address affected 737 Max before those aircraft return to service.

    The most startling part for me:-
    Southwest United, a division of Washington-based PCC Aerostructures, notified Kencoa in July 2018 that a batch of tracks had failed a quality test, and Kencoa passed that information to Spirit in early August of that year. Spirit then informed Boeing of the problem in September 2018, says the FAA.

    Before being notified of the issue, Boeing certificated 48 aircraft that may have had affected slats. The company then certificated another 85 potentially affected aircraft after being informed, says the FAA.

    It has also transpired that identifying the affected parts has been hampered by a failure to protect the identification marks on the parts with a protective coating, you really couldn't make it up could you.

    Between MCAS/the MAX 8, 737NG pickle forks and cowlings, 777 fuselage splits, the KC-46 multiple issues and now this (I've probably missed something else) it really has been a bad year for Boeing, but, is that the end of it or is there more issues that will come to light I wonder?


  • Options
    #1565
    CJhaughey
    Registered Users Posts: 14,906 ✭✭✭✭CJhaughey


    GM228 wrote: »
    there more issues that will come to light I wonder?

    I would say there is more to come yet.
    Money men don't make aircraft they make money.
    There is a lot of things that have gone on that passed unnoticed but once a spotlight is placed on the company you can be sure other shoddy stuff will surface.


  • Options
    #1566
    kmart6
    Registered Users Posts: 15,172 ✭✭✭✭kmart6


    $3.9m fine in total? If that's all it's pocket change to Boeing. If it is per plane then ok, it's a lot, article that is linked no longer there so can't check if it is a total or on a per plane basis.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1567
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    kmart6 wrote: »
    $3.9m fine in total? If that's all it's pocket change to Boeing. If it is per plane then ok, it's a lot, article that is linked no longer there so can't check if it is a total or on a per plane basis.

    It's total, here's the FAA release:-

    https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24456


  • Options
    #1568
    corsav6
    Registered Users Posts: 1,597 ✭✭✭corsav6


    CJhaughey wrote: »
    I would say there is more to come yet.
    Money men don't make aircraft they make money.
    There is a lot of things that have gone on that passed unnoticed but once a spotlight is placed on the company you can be sure other shoddy stuff will surface.

    1 mistake leads to an investigation that uncovers a lot more. Stuff like this could have been done on previous generations of aircraft without anyone knowing much. In fairness it's a 1960's aircraft that's been modified over the years.
    The next couple of years could provide some interesting findings.


  • Options
    #1569
    kmart6
    Registered Users Posts: 15,172 ✭✭✭✭kmart6


    GM228 wrote: »
    It's total, here's the FAA release:-

    https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24456
    Nothing they will notice so.


  • Options
    #1570
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,173 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    kmart6 wrote: »
    $3.9m fine in total? If that's all it's pocket change to Boeing. If it is per plane then ok, it's a lot, article that is linked no longer there so can't check if it is a total or on a per plane basis.
    GM228 wrote: »
    It's total, here's the FAA release:-

    https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24456

    That's a rounding error in their accounts , a meaningless penalty.


  • Options
    #1571
    Nijmegen
    Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    The US government won't properly sanction a company that makes so much bank for the US economy and has so much pull via lobbyists. Add that to the recent issues that have been emerging and make your own choices as a consumer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1572
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭Fritzbox


    Well, there is an almost 5,000 airframe order backlog for the 737 MAX, so I guess the consumer is not going to have much choice in the matter. Do you know anyone who won't fly with an airline because they operate Boeing?


  • Options
    #1573
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,271 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Plenty of people saying they or their families won't be flying on a MAX when it returns.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #1574
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭Fritzbox


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Plenty of people saying they or their families won't be flying on a MAX when it returns.

    Have the same people stopped flying on Boeing 777, 747-8 and Dreamliner as well?


  • Options
    #1575
    gordongekko
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    Have the same people stopped flying on Boeing 777, 747-8 and Dreamliner as well?

    In reality most people who are saying it mean they won't fly on it for a period of time until the plane is proven to be airworthy.

    I personally will be avoiding it for at least 12 months so that hopefully any further issues are resolved.


  • Options
    #1576
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,271 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    Have the same people stopped flying on Boeing 777, 747-8 and Dreamliner as well?

    How many of those have crashed due to design or assembly defects?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #1577
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    If Boeing operated in an actually effective and competent regulatory environment there would be serious implications at the board level by this stage.

    They are laughing up their sleeves at the world with the FAA in their pockets while they do it.


  • Options
    #1578
    crisco10
    Registered Users Posts: 6,182 ✭✭✭crisco10


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    Have the same people stopped flying on Boeing 777, 747-8 and Dreamliner as well?

    Do you know I would have been of a similar mindset to that (i.e. the juggernaut keeps going), but the more that has come out about Boeing, I am actually preferring to book flights with non-Boeing metal recently.

    E.g. looking at Tokyo flights at the moment, and preferring Finnair and their A350s over BA and their 777s or JAL and their 787s, and in November I chose to fly BA around Europe over KLM as BA were a32xs but KLMs were 737s..

    Granted I am just a drop in the ocean.


  • Options
    #1579
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    crisco10 wrote: »

    Granted I am just a drop in the ocean.

    Only if you fly the Max. Otherwise I think you’ll be fine - other planes don’t drop in the ocean that easily.


  • Options
    #1580
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭Fritzbox


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    How many of those have crashed due to design or assembly defects?

    They (the B777 at least) and various Airbuses have crashed for other reasons and no doubt will do so in the future. If you are not afraid to take the road trip to the airport I don't see how you wouldn't fancy your chances with the flight afterwards.


  • Options
    #1581
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 68,015 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    How many of those have crashed due to design or assembly defects?

    At least one BA 777, but the design defects were in the engines not the airframe


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1582
    Mrtm17
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭Mrtm17


    gordongekko wrote: »
    In reality most people who are saying it mean they won't fly on it for a period of time until the plane is proven to be airworthy.

    I personally will be avoiding it for at least 12 months so that hopefully any further issues are resolved.

    I'll be doing the same,I use ryanair maybe 10 times a year
    Wont b next year


  • Options
    #1583
    Damien360
    Registered Users Posts: 6,395 ✭✭✭Damien360


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Plenty of people saying they or their families won't be flying on a MAX when it returns.

    Plenty of people will change their minds when the likes of Ryanair make really low fare offers.


  • Options
    #1584
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The news only gets worse for Boeing and the FAA on this.
    A government analysis after the first Boeing 737 MAX crash last fall found the jets were at a significant risk for future crashes, but the agency did not ground the planes until after a second crash.

    Those two crashes killed 346 people.
    A Federal Aviation Administration analysis document predicted there would be more than 15 additional fatal crashes of the MAX over its lifetime, and was made public Wednesday at a House Transportation Committee hearing.

    Full story here.

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


  • Options
    #1585
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,748 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    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!

    That's pretty damning on both Boeing and the FAA.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/11/boeing-737-max-plane-faa-regulators-crash-risk


  • Options
    #1586
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,271 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Damien360 wrote: »
    Plenty of people will change their minds when the likes of Ryanair make really low fare offers.

    They're now admitting they may not have any MAX aircraft in service for the summer 2020 season. So fares will be going up if anything.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #1587
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭Fritzbox


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    They're now admitting they may not have any MAX aircraft in service for the summer 2020 season. So fares will be going up if anything.

    What will Ryanair fly instead? Will their present fleet of B737-800 suffice?


  • Options
    #1588
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Inquitus wrote: »
    That's pretty damning on both Boeing and the FAA.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/11/boeing-737-max-plane-faa-regulators-crash-risk

    Boeing need to somehow get in front of this and the only way I can see that happening is killing the model.

    The entire design and certification process is tainted and cannot be trusted to deliver a "safe" airframe.

    There is a degree of deliberate obfuscation on this being peddled by Boeing and their lobbyists.

    From a purely reputational standpoint, it has to be accepted that the MAX is dead, its toxic and continuing it's rollout in the aftermath of the regulatory failings is madness.

    The airframe as a whole is uncertifiable without the sticking plaster fixes of MCAS, and without secondary control systems to "eliminate" the flaw inherent in an end of life airframe that has been flogged to death for the convenience of airport handlers and "training" costs it is a dead duck IMO and someone in Boeing needs to look at their balance sheet and pull the plug.


  • Options
    #1589
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,173 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    banie01 wrote: »
    Boeing need to somehow get in front of this and the only way I can see that happening is killing the model.

    The entire design and certification process is tainted and cannot be trusted to deliver a "safe" airframe.

    There is a degree of deliberate obfuscation on this being peddled by Boeing and their lobbyists.

    From a purely reputational standpoint, it has to be accepted that the MAX is dead, its toxic and continuing it's rollout in the aftermath of the regulatory failings is madness.

    The airframe as a whole is uncertifiable without the sticking plaster fixes of MCAS, and without secondary control systems to "eliminate" the flaw inherent in an end of life airframe that has been flogged to death for the convenience of airport handlers and "training" costs it is a dead duck IMO and someone in Boeing needs to look at their balance sheet and pull the plug.

    I've been thinking this for a while..

    At the very least they need to submit for a full type certification and stop trying to pretend that it's just another generation of 737.


  • Options
    #1590
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,748 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    banie01 wrote: »
    Boeing need to somehow get in front of this and the only way I can see that happening is killing the model.

    The entire design and certification process is tainted and cannot be trusted to deliver a "safe" airframe.

    There is a degree of deliberate obfuscation on this being peddled by Boeing and their lobbyists.

    From a purely reputational standpoint, it has to be accepted that the MAX is dead, its toxic and continuing it's rollout in the aftermath of the regulatory failings is madness.

    The airframe as a whole is uncertifiable without the sticking plaster fixes of MCAS, and without secondary control systems to "eliminate" the flaw inherent in an end of life airframe that has been flogged to death for the convenience of airport handlers and "training" costs it is a dead duck IMO and someone in Boeing needs to look at their balance sheet and pull the plug.

    Thing is they are between a rock and a hard place, with 4500 odd unfulfilled Max orders, and only 387 deliveries of the Max series, the rest of their order backlog consists of only 900 unfulfilled orders, if they pulled the plug on the Max it would absolutely decimate them. It takes up to a decade to design and bring to market a new plane.

    The simple maths of this means canning the Max would likely bring about the end of Boeing, especially now they are lagging behind Airbus in the narrow body market as well as the mid-range market. Only the 787 stands on its own and the 777X is plagued by engine and other issues and already a couple of years at least late to market.

    GZEzuLj.png


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1591
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    What will Ryanair fly instead? Will their present fleet of B737-800 suffice?

    It will have to, there is no alternative available to them or slots available to buy elsewhere.

    It's going to be a very lucrative few years for 2nd hand sales, leasing, maintenance and parts.

    Unless Boeing restart 800 series production and discount the arse of them to offset running costs, there will be no new airframes hitting that sector in any volume over the next 12 months or so that aren't Airbus for at least the next 12 months IMO.

    That the FAA let an unsafe plane be certified, knowing how and why it was dangerous in the 1st place in the hope a software fix would solve the problem before anyone died is abhorrent.


Advertisement