Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

banie01 · 20-07-2019 10:19am

ZX7R wrote: »

I have family also, but I find that sentiment very funny, you and your family are more likely to be killed in a car accident on you way to the airport,than been killed in the aircraft

I don't disagree with you regarding the likelihood hood of death in car crash versus on a Max.

The issue is now though that in the rush to ensure the Neo didn't erode Boeing market share, that Boeing rushed an unsafe aircraft to market.

The Max is this generations De Havilland Comet.
Likely the best of its class, but due to a rush to market.
Seriously inherent design flaws were overlooked and now people are dead and the aircraft is subject to a grounding and IMO a recertification is likely.

The Comet had an @3yr headstart to market and apart from those pesky fatal crashes was a better plane than its competitors.

No's Built.
Comet; 114
707; 865
DC8; 556
880; 65
Caravelle; 282

Yet thanks to the fatal harm caused it's reputation by the crashes and initial refutation of any airframe issue...
In an age long before the rise of Social Media!
It was outsold by even the bloody French

What is the Comet remembered for however?

The Comet was a better aircraft than the 707, DC8, Caravelle and 880 and it had a @ minimum of a 3year head start to market.
Indeed after redesign to eliminate fatigue issues that led to the fatal crashes, it was a far better and safer airframe than its competitors.
It was an airframe that could operate profitably at a 43% load factor.

Being the aircraft that drove the adoption of FAIL SAFE and LIFE SAFE design standards?
Being a primary driving factor in improving the oversight of regulatory oversight of civil aviation?
Being the very best of its generation?

Or...

Being the airframe that contributed most to the erosion of the UKs 3-5yr lead in the market?
Being the airframe that drive Airlines to Boeing, Douglas and Convair?
Being the Airframe that kills?

It's easy to take the line that Boeing will still flood the market and there's no alternative available.
I would take the view however that Airlines will put public perception above Boeing's rush to market and EASA will take a firm line with any reintroduction of the MAX in Europe at least.

cnocbui · 20-07-2019 10:53am

Roger_007 wrote: »

There is no doubt that in many people's minds that the MAX designation has become synonymous with 'unsafe aircraft'. Whether this reputation is deserved or not, it is believed by many of the travelling public. When it comes to aviation safety, perception is everything.
The longer the MAX stays grounded the more the perception will grow in the public mind that the problems must be really serious and fundamental to the design. If the type is not recertified soon it could end any hope of the MAX ever returning to service in its current design and branding.
This has happened before in the case of the DC10, (which still flies but only as a cargo plane).
Boeing could decide to reengineer and rebuild or modify the planes already built or bite the bullet and scrap the MAX altogether and go back to the drawing board. Either way it's going to be very costly for the company.
At this stage, I think it looks like the MAX brand is toast.

The Max has a very much deserved reputation for being unsafe. I am surprised anyone could think for a minute that that it isn't.

The problems really are serious and fundamental.

ForestFire · 20-07-2019 12:18pm

ZX7R wrote: »

I have family also, but I find that sentiment very funny, you and your family are more likely to be killed in a car accident on you way to the airport,than been killed in the aircraft

.... By aircraft you mean... any aircraft that is not a Max right?
I wonder what the probability is, if you only used the Max figures?

There is nothing wrong with improving your safety as much as possible, be that traveling in a safer more modern car (ncap check) or a safer aircraft where you know this to be the case.

NH2013 · 20-07-2019 1:24pm

ZX7R wrote: »

I have family also, but I find that sentiment very funny, you and your family are more likely to be killed in a car accident on you way to the airport,than been killed in the aircraft

Well, actually, on Irish roads we've a death rate of 3.8 deaths per billion km, the MAX has a death rate of closer to 2000 deaths per billion km, so more than 500 times more likely to be killed on a MAX flight than driving to the airport, especially considering the distances involved driving to the airport vs travelling on the plane.

The statistic is equally damning even if you compare deaths per journey, or deaths per hour travelled.

At the rate of occurrence, had the Boeing 737MAX not been grounded and the aircraft continued to be delivered we'd currently be looking at a similar crash about once every 5-6 weeks if the rate of occurrence remained the same.

Cookiemunster · 20-07-2019 1:38pm

NH2013 wrote: »

Well, actually, on Irish roads we've a death rate of 3.8 deaths per billion km, the MAX has a death rate of closer to 2000 deaths per billion km, so more than 500 times more likely to be killed on a MAX flight than driving to the airport, especially considering the distances involved driving to the airport vs travelling on the plane.

The statistic is equally damning even if you compare deaths per journey, or deaths per hour travelled.

At the rate of occurrence, had the Boeing 737MAX not been grounded and the aircraft continued to be delivered we'd currently be looking at a similar crash about once every 5-6 weeks if the rate of occurrence remained the same.

Two words. Sample size. It's tiny with the max compared to the billions of miles actually travelled on Irish roads and skews the statistics.

Bob24 · 20-07-2019 1:52pm

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Two words. Sample size. It's tiny with the max compared to the billions of miles actually travelled on Irish roads and skews the statistics.

Given that we had two crashes and that the cause for both of them is clearly identified and is the same, we are hardly looking at a statistical anomaly though ...

murphaph · 20-07-2019 1:55pm

ZX7R wrote: »

I have family also, but I find that sentiment very funny, you and your family are more likely to be killed in a car accident on you way to the airport,than been killed in the aircraft

Absolutely true. Would you have flown on the Comet while they were falling out of the skies at a time when road traffic was even more dangerous?

We take risks every day. I have to travel by road to reach the airport. I do not have an alternative (in Dublin anyway). I do not have to fly the Max as soon as the (disgraced) FAA tell me it's a safe plane (again). I have an alternative there. I can also choose to simply forfeit my travel plans if (in the extremely unlikely event) the airline with no Max aircraft substitute one for my flight. I would do so at present.

People may mock the attitude but I suspect if all the passengers on ET 302 knew then what we know today, some at least would not have taken that flight and would be alive today.

GM228 · 20-07-2019 2:05pm

goingnowhere wrote: »

Plus if you were sold as flown by EI and they change to another carrier you have a right to a full refund or rebooking.

You are only entitled to refund or rebooking when denied boarding, delayed by 2+ hours or cancellation, a change of carrier provided no more than 2 hours delay affords no right.

ForestFire · 20-07-2019 2:08pm

Sample size is not affected by what you are comparing it too, it just needs to be large enough on your item to give reasonable data.

Otherwise how can you ever say, for example.. Tesla is a safer car on the road, when it will never reach the same sample size of cars before it? But once Tesla has/had enough miles and data on its own it can be consider good data.

After one year of service, 130 MAXs had been delivered to 28 customers, logging over 41,000 flights in 118,000 hours and flying.

There is some many known issues, deffiencies, certification, with the max I do not know how you can defend it.

That's 41 thousand flights, How much more data and crashes would you like before you think there might be an issue or the statistics are reasonable?

I have a picture in my mind of a family at the airport boarding a flight:-
(attempt at serious humour)

Son - I'm scared to go on planne
Dad - it's okay it's safer than driving
Son - but one of the tyres looks flat
Dad - it's okay it's safer than driving
Son - there a strange fuel smell in the cabin
Dad - it's okay it's safer than driving
Son - there's sparks coming out of the engine
Dad - it's okay it's safer than driving
Son - the left wing just fell off on the runway
Dad - it's okay it's safer than driving

Cookiemunster · 20-07-2019 5:22pm

Who's defending it? We know that it's has serious issues and should never have been certified. It's still doesn't change the fact that there sample size is tiny in comparison to what it was being compared to.

ForestFire · 20-07-2019 6:34pm

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Who's defending it? We know that it's has serious issues and should never have been certified. It's still doesn't change the fact that there sample size is tiny in comparison to what it was being compared to.

I'll try to explain again as best I can....

This discussion all started from a poster saying they would avoid the Max until it was clean for 2 years on return. Another poster said this was funny, as flying is safer than driving.

But what I am saying (and the first poster I believe) is that with the Max this is not the case.

It has a high enough sample size on its own, to have a high confidence factor in the statistical results (130 planes with 47k flights). What we compare it to is irrelevant when it comes to this confidence factor, let's say it 95% for example.

The statistics for road deaths in Ireland, yes has a much higher sample size, and therefore a higher confident factor, again let's say 99% for example.

This difference in confidence factor is not going to change the statistical figures by the current difference of 500 times.

Therefore I think is reasonable to say its safer to drive in Ireland than fly on a Max (pre grounding and fixes).

When it returns to flight we will have zero data, bar some test flights, but it has to come from a point of 500 times better with its improvements.

So is it not reasonable that someone would consider the Max still a higher risk than driving, when it returns, until it builds up that flight data and confidence factor again?

cml387 · 20-07-2019 7:15pm

I thought the DC-10 would be mentioned at some point.

Yes, the Ermonville crash should not have happened, given the cargo door problem had been identified as a problem (and fixed, but not on the Turkish Airlines aircraft).

The second big Dc-10 crash at Chicago was due to careless maintenance and nothing to do with the quality of the DC-10 which went on to be a good and safe passenger aircraft (not just a cargo aircraft as somebody said).

AlekSmart · 20-07-2019 7:56pm

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Big difference is that

a) a321neo hasn’t crashed
a second a321neo hasnt crashed
C) every regulator globally hasn’t grounded the A321neo
D) the a321neo was built as a FBW, so fixing it much easier. Fixing the Max isn’t as easy.

Agreed,a BIG difference to You,I and other interested contributors to A&A...however,even reporting an :eek: Airbus :eek: pitch control related issue can be the first domino,and should some of the more wild eyed tabloid outlets get a chance,they will flick that piece just to see how far the remainder will tumble.

Given the current beginnings of,a Politically driven,anti-aviation policy in parts of Europe,the North Wall could still experience a resurgence in popularity !

Thirdfox · 25-07-2019 6:55am

Boeing says it could slow down or halt production of the Max:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/24/boeing-reports-largest-ever-quarterly-loss-following-737-max-grounding

zilog_jones · 25-07-2019 9:54am

lfc200 wrote: »

Found it interesting on Thursday was boarding an Aer Lingus flight with a couple probably in their 70's in front of me. Queuing on the steps to get on and the man saw the Airbus A320 name on the side turned to his wife and said "thank God it's not one of those Boeing planes that had been crashing"
What they would have done if they had seen Boeing 737 Max written on the side who knows but I found it interesting..

They couldn't have cared that much if they waited until they saw the plane. It's not hard to find out that Aer Lingus haven't been using 737's of any type for donkeys...

Rawr · 25-07-2019 10:33am

Thirdfox wrote: »

Boeing says it could slow down or halt production of the Max:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/24/boeing-reports-largest-ever-quarterly-loss-following-737-max-grounding

Financial issues aside, I'm guessing that a lack of available packing space for the finished MAXs would eventually stop them. Especially if they were supposed to make 900 of them this year.

I can't help but wonder if we'd ever get to a point where Boeing might have to just scrap the whole 737 Max program and start from scratch. That this was a modification too far from the 737 Classic and that they'd be better off designing a new narrow body that could accommodate the Leap engines in a position that didn't present as many potential challenges.

I know that this is very unlikely, but the negative press and challenges presented to the Max, make me wonder if they'll manage a DC-10 style comeback...or commit to an incredibly wasteful scrapping of the entire type. I hope the latter does not happen, I have a feeling that it wouldn't just be Boeing going down the tubes with that.

Quin_Dub · 25-07-2019 10:45am

Rawr wrote: »

Financial issues aside, I'm guessing that a lack of available packing space for the finished MAXs would eventually stop them. Especially if they were supposed to make 900 of them this year.

I can't help but wonder if we'd ever get to a point where Boeing might have to just scrap the whole 737 Max program and start from scratch. That this was a modification too far from the 737 Classic and that they'd be better off designing a new narrow body that could accommodate the Leap engines in a position that didn't present as many potential challenges.

I know that this is very unlikely, but the negative press and challenges presented to the Max, make me wonder if they'll manage a DC-10 style comeback...or commit to an incredibly wasteful scrapping of the entire type. I hope the latter does not happen, I have a feeling that it wouldn't just be Boeing going down the tubes with that.

To be honest I think the only thing at this stage that might quiet the issue would be if they submitted the place for full certification as a "new" aircraft and stopped trying to claim that it's a regular old 737.

Bob24 · 25-07-2019 11:23am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

To be honest I think the only thing at this stage that might quiet the issue would be if they submitted the place for full certification as a "new" aircraft and stopped trying to claim that it's a regular old 737.

On the one hand I agree with this, but on the other hand since it would defeat the purpose of the Max programme which was meant to deliver a more fuel efficient aircraft without requiring a full recertification, I find it unlikely they’d go that route (all existing and prospective clients would not take it very well if told the idea of smooth transition with their pilots already qualified to fly older models was going down the drain).

goingnowhere · 25-07-2019 11:57am

737 Max (and indeed the NG) would struggle to get past a visual inspection for current certification.

The main cabin door for a start...

Damien360 · 25-07-2019 12:34pm

Bob24 wrote: »

On the one hand I agree with this, but on the other hand since it would defeat the purpose of the Max programme which was meant to deliver a more full efficient aircraft without requiring a full recertification, I find it unlikely they’d go that route (all existing and prospective clients would not take it very well if told the idea of smooth transition with their pilots already qualified to fly older models was going down the drain).

On this point.....for those in the industry.....

Assuming it needs full recertification as a new aircraft, what would the cost to Boeing be if it underwrote the training costs of pilots to achieve new certification on this ? Even if they did this for a period of 2 years for each airline. It would keep customers but would it be prohibitive cost ? Would 2 years be enough to cover existing pilot base for each major airline ?

cnocbui · 25-07-2019 1:56pm

Bob24 wrote: »

On the one hand I agree with this, but on the other hand since it would defeat the purpose of the Max programme which was meant to deliver a more full efficient aircraft without requiring a full recertification, I find it unlikely they’d go that route (all existing and prospective clients would not take it very well if told the idea of smooth transition with their pilots already qualified to fly older models was going down the drain).

With any luck, Boeing won't be given a choice as to certification.

ForestFire · 25-07-2019 2:40pm

Bob24 wrote: »

On the one hand I agree with this, but on the other hand since it would defeat the purpose of the Max programme which was meant to deliver a more full efficient aircraft without requiring a full recertification, I find it unlikely they’d go that route (all existing and prospective clients would not take it very well if told the idea of smooth transition with their pilots already qualified to fly older models was going down the drain).

But is this not the reason Boeing are in this mess and have had multi aircraft losses to date.

It refuses to accept/admit the planes are funamently different and do require pilot training (rather than blaming them) etc., refuses to act quickly after the information known flowing the first loss.

And does everyone in the industry not know this at this stage, and should if be the authorities demanding full recertification regardless of Boeing programme ?

Quin_Dub · 25-07-2019 3:01pm

Bob24 wrote: »

On the one hand I agree with this, but on the other hand since it would defeat the purpose of the Max programme which was meant to deliver a more full efficient aircraft without requiring a full recertification, I find it unlikely they’d go that route (all existing and prospective clients would not take it very well if told the idea of smooth transition with their pilots already qualified to fly older models was going down the drain).

Well , exactly..

The attempt to sneak it through as basic upgrade/refresh of the existing 737 is at the root of all the problems.

If they didn't have to create MCAS to make it "fly like the old one" etc. etc. we might not be where we are.

They need to bite the bullet , call it a new plane and get on with it.

Bob24 · 25-07-2019 3:11pm

ForestFire wrote: »

But is this not the reason Boeing are in this mess and have had multi aircraft losses to date.

It refuses to accept/admit the planes are funamently different and do require pilot training (rather than blaming them) etc., refuses to act quickly after the information known flowing the first loss.

And does everyone in the industry not know this at this stage, and should if be the authorities demanding full recertification regardless of Boeing programme ?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Well , exactly..

The attempt to sneak it through as basic upgrade/refresh of the existing 737 is at the root of all the problems.

If they didn't have to create MCAS to make it "fly like the old one" etc. etc. we might not be where we are.

They need to bite the bullet , call it a new plane and get on with it.

Yep we are all on the same page to say Boeing's plan to get it certified it as a minor update was a bad idea.

However full recertification is not only a huge cost for Boeing, but also for their existing and prospective Max customers. Boeing (and probably the airlines who have taken or are waiting for delivery) will do everything in their power to avoid that.

And if recertification ends up being required, it is going to significantly impact the business rationale for airlines which had ordered it assuming they had pilots already certified to fly it.

So again, I agree it should be looked at as a completely new design - but as a new design it doesn't seem very attractive.

GM228 · 26-07-2019 6:12pm

Thirdfox wrote: »

Boeing says it could slow down or halt production of the Max:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/24/boeing-reports-largest-ever-quarterly-loss-following-737-max-grounding

A good indication of things at Boeing following the publication of their quarterly loss.

Net operating profit from +2.2 to - 2.9 and operating profit from +2.7 to -3.4 billion $ in the space of 12 months - wow, but not surprising I suppose.

Blut2 · 26-07-2019 6:59pm

The share price only dropping 1.25% is the most surprising (odd?) part. Investors are putting way too much faith in the short term/cost cutting model that Boeing has used in recent years bouncing back sooner rather than later. I don't think they're pricing in the true financial cost of the MAX not taking to the air again until well into 2020 at all.

MJohnston · 27-07-2019 12:54am

Blut2 wrote: »

The share price only dropping 1.25% is the most surprising (odd?) part. Investors are putting way too much faith in the short term/cost cutting model that Boeing has used in recent years bouncing back sooner rather than later. I don't think they're pricing in the true financial cost of the MAX not taking to the air again until well into 2020 at all.

The stock market rarely reacts in a logical way to this kind of stuff. They will be reacting to how Boeing performed vs their outlook, rather than how they actually performed. Much of the drop in their price came immediately after the Max was grounded.

L1011 · 27-07-2019 1:11am

The stock market crashes over history show that stock traders are utterly awful at pricing in risk.

Tenger · 27-07-2019 9:15am

And keep in mind that there are probably some speculators buying Boeing stock as it drops, planning to sell it as it rises again.

banie01 · 27-07-2019 9:23am

Tenger wrote: »

And keep in mind that there are probably some speculators buying Boeing stock as it drops, planning to sell it as it rises again.

You'd have to wonder how deep Boeing's pockets are and how long they can sustain this level of loss without making a fund raising play, be it via loans, capital call or stock issue.

Boeing have more issues than just the MAX and while that is the headline item the military contracts and the quality issues that impacted on acceptance of KC-46's and the loss of a large amount of military maintenance work the cash flow is also taking a large hit away from the MAX portfolio too.

Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Comments