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…5152545657…74

Comments

  • Options
    #1592
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭Fritzbox


    banie01 wrote: »

    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.

    Er, no, it's not dead, who ever told you that? It certainly isn't toxic either.
    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.

    All Airbuses produced today also need "secondary" control systems to eliminate their inherent flaws (they're unstable) to help the pilots operate them. Otherwise they would immediately fall out of the sky.


  • Options
    #1593
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    banie01 wrote: »
    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.


    Absolutely - There is a quote earlier in the thread from a report showing that the FAA decided not to challenge some safety issues with the MAX as they "didn't want to negatively impact Boeings time to market"

    The FAA prioritised Boeing Profits over public safety - Utterly despicable.


  • Options
    #1594
    Damien360
    Registered Users Posts: 6,354 ✭✭✭Damien360


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

    Using google as my source, it took the A320 from 1981 concept to 1987 for the first flight.

    In my opinion.....For Boeing, the cost of development of a whole new airframe plus the cost of scrapping the entire Max program would be impossible to finance. And it would put Boeing way behind the curve with loss of market share in that time. I can’t see major customers (current ones waiting for max) waiting another 6 years with their current ageing fleet.

    They are going to try get the Max program to work. The FAA will bend to the will of the US government and it will fly (as I feel they did to get the Max to this point). That will likely be unacceptable to non-US certification so I can see the Max used in the US only but it will fly.

    With its eventual extended use in the US, this may bring political pressure to allow it outside the US. This will gives Boeing breathing room to develop a new airframe.

    I wonder can I bring this bare bones business plan to Boeing and ask for a job.....


  • Options
    #1595
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,524 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    Er, no, it's not dead, who ever told you that? It certainly isn't toxic either.



    All Airbuses produced today also need "secondary" control systems to eliminate their inherent flaws (they're unstable) to help the pilots operate them. Otherwise they would immediately fall out of the sky.

    There is a world of difference between a FBW airframe that is designed around such a control system and a sticking plaster additional system such as MCAS.

    Comparing an FBW system, to an ancillary control input that overrides a pilot without the pilot being aware it exists, and that it delivers control correction far in excess of what it was certified to do, strongly indicates you haven't a bulls notion of what the crux of Boeing's issue here is.

    There is a world of difference between a flight control system designed from the outset for inherent relaxed stability, and an eltronic system that has clearly faulty design that is tacked onto the 50y.o mechanical control system of the 737.


  • Options
    #1596
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭Fritzbox


    banie01 wrote: »

    Comparing an FBW system, to an ancillary control input that overrides a pilot without the pilot being aware it exists, and that it delivers control correction far in excess of what it was certified to do, strongly indicates you haven't a bulls notion of what the crux of Boeing's issue here is.

    I suspect you haven't got a bulls notion yourself. 737 MAX will probably be fully re-certified by the FAA in the next few months and by Europe's AESA a month or two afterwards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1597
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,524 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    I suspect you haven't got a bulls notion yourself. 737 MAX will probably be fully re-certified by the FAA in the next few months and by Europe's AESA a month or two afterwards.

    Feel free to read back over this thread, particularly the posts from pilots and well informed aviation minded folk.
    There is a world of information from them, and indeed from the regulators that would strongly suggest a "few months" is far from likely.

    The Canadian regulators in particular, have expressed quite strong opinions.


  • Options
    #1598
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭Fritzbox


    banie01 wrote: »
    Feel free to read back over this thread, particularly the posts from pilots and well informed aviation minded folk.
    There is a world of information from them, and indeed from the regulators that would strongly suggest a "few months" is far from likely.

    The Canadian regulators in particular, have expressed quite strong opinions.

    A thread on Boards.ie full of quotes from anonymous posters is certainly not the last authority on airliner safety and design - far from it.

    Why don't you accept the opinion from qualified authorities - here:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-easa/boeings-max-likely-to-return-to-european-service-in-first-quarter-regulator-idUSKBN1XE1U1
    Boeing's MAX likely to return to European service in first-quarter: regulator

    HELSINKI (Reuters) - Boeing’s (BA.N) grounded 737 MAX airliner is likely to return to service in Europe during the first quarter of 2020, the head of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) said on Monday.

    While the European regulator expects to give its approval in January, preparations by national authorities and airlines may delay the resumption of commercial flights by up to another two months, EASA executive director Patrick Ky indicated.

    “If there are training requirements (and) coordination to be done with the EU member states to make sure everyone does the same thing at the same time, this will take a bit of time,” Ky said. “That’s why I’m saying the first quarter of 2020.”


  • Options
    #1599
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,524 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    A thread on Boards.ie full of quotes from anonymous posters is certainly not the last authority on airliner safety and design - far from it.

    Why don't you accept the opinion from qualified authorities - here:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-easa/boeings-max-likely-to-return-to-european-service-in-first-quarter-regulator-idUSKBN1XE1U1

    You are posting an article from the start of November.
    The goal posts on a return to service have shifted significantly since then including the evidence regarding the FAA culpability and knowledge released today.

    You do realize that none of the events happen in a vacuum, an opinion that was a best guess can be rapidly revised and even reversed in the light of new information?

    Or is it a case of finding the best spin possible to but on a partial representation of "facts"?
    Because that hasn't worked out so well for Boeing lately.


  • Options
    #1600
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    A thread on Boards.ie full of quotes from anonymous posters is certainly not the last authority on airliner safety and design - far from it.

    Why don't you accept the opinion from qualified authorities - here:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-easa/boeings-max-likely-to-return-to-european-service-in-first-quarter-regulator-idUSKBN1XE1U1

    Even the FAA have said today it is unlikely it will be re-certified in Jan 2020, and they will not rush things, that article is well out of date at this point. EASA haven't even had a chance to do the test flights they have said they will require at this point.

    In the meantime more muck has been thrown at Boeing on the 787 which has had lightning strike protections removed in order to lower cost and make sure they meet delivery dates. There is a whole bad culture at Boeing being exposed at the moment, and weighing up the information it seems that the global grounding will certainly stretch into a full year, which would be 10th March 2020.


  • Options
    #1601
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Damien360 wrote: »
    They are going to try get the Max program to work. The FAA will bend to the will of the US government and it will fly (as I feel they did to get the Max to this point). That will likely be unacceptable to non-US certification so I can see the Max used in the US only but it will fly.

    That won't work, only around 15% of the 737 Max order book is for domestic US flights. Boeing needs it to be re-certified globally, and with Airbus unable to pick up the slack as their A320 lines are booked out for 8 odd years, by hook or by crook the 737 Max will get global re-certification. Might be some good ammo for the EU though in Trump's attempted trade war against them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1602
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭Fritzbox


    Inquitus wrote: »
    Even the FAA have said today it is unlikely it will be re-certified in Jan 2020, and they will not rush things, that article is well out of date at this point.

    Sure. When I said "in the next few months" I meant sometime around March or April - but it could extend well into the summer.
    EASA haven't even had a chance to do the test flights they have said they will require at this point.

    Sure, AESA have to be fully satisfied as well. But the impression I get is that EASA are, in principle, not in objection to the MCAS system as an automatic flight control system on the 737 MAX - they do need to be satisfied upon its final implementation though?


  • Options
    #1603
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    Sure. When I said "in the next few months" I meant sometime around March or April - but it could extend well into the summer.

    Sure, AESA have to be fully satisfied as well. But the impression I get is that EASA are, in principle, not in objection to the MCAS system as an automatic flight control system on the 737 MAX - they do need to be satisfied upon its final implementation though?

    Whatever about them addressing the issues and updating software etc. One of the key issues is the lack of training - Before it gets back in the air , every single pilot will have to receive comprehensive training including significant logging hours in a full flight sim (not some iPad version) on the aircraft .

    That alone could delay ( or at least massively slowdown) its reintroduction.


  • Options
    #1604
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,081 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    All Airbuses produced today also need "secondary" control systems to eliminate their inherent flaws (they're unstable) to help the pilots operate them. Otherwise they would immediately fall out of the sky.

    So what. They were designed to be fly by wire and Airbus spent many years and billions of euro developing and perfecting these systems, redundancies and fail safes and have decades of safe operation to prove it.

    Boeing bodged in a system that can kill everyone on board with no backup system, no workable manual override, and reliant on a single sensor with no redundancy.

    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
    #1605
    CJhaughey
    Registered Users Posts: 14,906 ✭✭✭✭CJhaughey


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    So what. They were designed to be fly by wire and Airbus spent many years and billions of euro developing and perfecting these systems, redundancies and fail safes and have decades of safe operation to prove it.

    Boeing bodged in a system that has killed everyone on board , twice with no backup system, no workable manual override, and reliant on a single sensor with no redundancy.

    FYP.;)


  • Options
    #1606
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,386 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    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!

    This has to have serious ramifications for both Boeing and the FAA. It's difficult to see how other aviation authorities worldwide can place any faith in either Boeing, the FAA or their combined 'self certification' processes.

    This could have long lasting effects with other regulatory authorities insisting on their own certification of an airframe rather than recognising and accepting FAA certification.

    The whole concept of self certification needs to be binned as it has been shown time and time again that commercial pressure overrides quality concerns.


  • Options
    #1607
    coolshannagh28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭coolshannagh28


    Amidst this scandal , how has the Boeing share price remained so buoyant ? Surely Hedge funds will short it and bring the company the reward it deserves .


  • Options
    #1608
    CJhaughey
    Registered Users Posts: 14,906 ✭✭✭✭CJhaughey


    coolshannagh28 wrote: »
    Amidst this scandal , how has the Boeing share price remained so buoyant ? Surely Hedge funds will short it and bring the company the reward it deserves .

    Because the production of Commercial airliners is only a small part of the entire Boeing company.
    They also make Helicopters, Missiles, Rockets and a whole lot of other products for Military as well as Civilian markets.


  • Options
    #1609
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,524 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    CJhaughey wrote: »
    Because the production of Commercial airliners is only a small part of the entire Boeing company.
    They also make Helicopters, Missiles, Rockets and a whole lot of other products for Military as well as Civilian markets.

    Boeing's military contracts are tanking.
    They have lost P-8 maintenance, KC46 is still experiencing issues aswell as being again under threat from Northrop/Airbus.

    The pentagon are mooting upgraded F-15 buys as a notional capability stop gap but in what is really a step to illegal state aid.
    Have dropped out of next gen ICBM upgrades and while they are developing 6th gen fighter, it is reportedly beset with scoping issues and we'll behind the planning curve.

    The USAF have been banging the drum for 5th gen and pushing 6th gen development.
    Buying a 4.5+ f15 is a total reverse of policy and will be a major issue come any WTO action re:Airbus.


  • Options
    #1610
    Car99
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭Car99


    How are they going to rectify the massive force required to manually trim the horizontal stabilizer in an aircraft travelling at high speed in nose down attitude? All NG's must have the same issue , no?


  • Options
    #1611
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,081 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    But in an NG there isn't an undocumented "feature" pushing the nose down further and more frequently than the FAA thought when they certified it (and I'm in no way willing to let the FAA off the hook in any way, here.)

    I'm no pilot but afaik you'd have to really fcuk up on an NG (CoG way out of bounds, perhaps?) to get as far out of trim as MCAS got the accident flights into.

    Even then, you could at least try to correct the problem without an undocumented automatic system fighting you!

    If anything though, this clusterf**k has exposed the inadequacy of the whole 737-NG and MAX trim system. What might have been workable in a -100 or -200 is starting to look like a different kettle of fish, maybe even Boeing/FAA assumptions which certified the NG are bad. Again, no pilot but I've seen youtube videos of NG pilots manually trimming and it's bloody ridiculous what they have to do - and that's in a controlled, non-emergency situation.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Canadians and/or EASA demanded a redesign of the whole MAX trim system. That'll take a lot of time and a lot of dollars.

    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1612
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Qantas selects A350-1000 as preferred plane for Project Sunrise if it gets off the ground, rejecting the Boeing 777X in the process.
    Qantas picked its favorite: Airbus could be the manufacturer to break the record for the longest commercial connection in the world. The Airbus A350-1000 was selected as the “preferred aircraft” for the airline’s upcoming 20-hour flights.

    The Australian carrier announced its preference for Airbus on December 13, 2019, at the expense of Boeing which had offered the 777-8. A “detailed evaluation of the Boeing 777X and Airbus A350” was made to pick the aircraft which could participate in the Project Sunrise. “The A350 is a fantastic aircraft and the agreement on the table with Airbus offers us the best possible combination of commercial conditions, energy efficiency, operating costs and customer experience," said Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce in a press release. He also praised the “high reliability” of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB powering the aircraft.

    https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/24339-boeing-777x-loses-qantas-project-sunrise-to-airbus-a350


  • Options
    #1613
    Nijmegen
    Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/16/boeing-737-max-production-faa

    Now talking March. Feels like a drip drip of delays. And reading between the lines of the FAA statement, Boeing not being nearly quick enough to come up with answers.


  • Options
    #1614
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,524 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Looks like the writing may be on the wall for the MAX!

    New York (CNN Business)Boeing's stock fell Monday following a report that the company was considering curbing production of the troubled 737 Max.

    Sources told CNN that a decision about the future of the 737 Max could be announced Monday after the US markets close. The company could either suspend or further curb production, they added.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/16/business/boeing-stock-737-max-curb-production/index.html


  • Options
    #1615
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Nothing much that has happened since my post predicting doom has made me think that won't come to pass.

    If they're going in to a rate cut it'll be gradual but probably continual - wind down supplier and staff contracts rather than a dead stop. If there's a dead stop it may as well signal sending the frames to a metal recycler!


  • Options
    #1616
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    L1011 wrote: »
    Nothing much that has happened since my post predicting doom has made me think that won't come to pass.

    If they're going in to a rate cut it'll be gradual but probably continual - wind down supplier and staff contracts rather than a dead stop. If there's a dead stop it may as well signal sending the frames to a metal recycler!

    One of the big problems noted is that the US has nigh on full employment in the aviation and aviation engineering arenas, so there is no guarantee that if workers get furloughed they won't quit and move to another job somewhere else, once you lose that skilled workforce, you are then is a seriously desperate situation with regard to restarting the line.


  • Options
    #1617
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Inquitus wrote: »
    One of the big problems noted is that the US has nigh on full employment in the aviation and aviation engineering arenas, so there is no guarantee that if workers get furloughed they won't quit and move to another job somewhere else, once you lose that skilled workforce, you are then is a seriously desperate situation with regard to restarting the line.

    Cheaper to pay them to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs than consume components you're paying for to build an airframe you'll have to pay to store in that case. Although plenty of people will only accept that for a short period of time before they look to leave anyway - being paid to sit at home gets extremely boring extremely fast!


  • Options
    #1618
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    L1011 wrote: »
    Cheaper to pay them to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs than consume components you're paying for to build an airframe you'll have to pay to store in that case. Although plenty of people will only accept that for a short period of time before they look to leave anyway - being paid to sit at home gets extremely boring extremely fast!

    Agreed and it is unlikely Boeing will pay their subcontractors to keep staff on with no work to do, with the 737 Max having @100 vitally important subcontractors, if those subcontractors have a skills drain as they themselves can't foot the bill for paying people to do nothing, then the knock on effect to the 737 Max program could be dramatic. Personally I think the threat of stopping the line is aimed at the FAA and Washington, and not something they can seriously contemplate. They have used up all the 737 Max cash received at this point, but have arranged @$10bn of revolving loans that could plug the gap through Q1 2020 even if it has a desperate impact on their free cash flow.

    All in all a very unenvious position for them to find themselves in. That on top of the 777X failing its pressure test means that both the Narrowbody and Future widebody programs are late to market or return to market. A headline example of the 777X's woes is that Qantas "Operation Sunrise" has opted for the A350, if it ever does get off the ground, even if it only represents 12 planes it is the headline maker of the future Ultra Long Haul market and a prestigious feather in the cap of Airbus.


  • Options
    #1619
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,110 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    If production of the 737 MAX (4th generation?) is cut, or stopped, can or will production of the 737 third generation continue / replace it?


  • Options
    #1620
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Geuze wrote: »
    If production of the 737 MAX (4th generation?) is cut, or stopped, can or will production of the 737 third generation continue / replace it?

    In theory yes. A limited number are still being built on the same line currently.

    In practice - there are no orders for the civilian NG anymore, and the parts production pipeline has been wound down over years to the level needed for the military variants + spares. It would take quite some time to get this brought back up. Years not months.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1621
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Geuze wrote: »
    If production of the 737 MAX (4th generation?) is cut, or stopped, can or will production of the 737 third generation continue / replace it?

    Why would anyone buy a 737-NG when it is 20-30% less efficient than a Max or a Neo A320? Not withstanding its issue with slats and pickle forks. It is not a plane of the future, but one that was rightly replaced with more modern engines, even if that replacement is now banned from flying.


Advertisement