Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

I do feel that given the handling and aerodynamic changes with the Max airframe that separate type certification should be called for.

That will come with huge cost implications for both Boeing and purchasing Airlines, but the software fix is not at all appropriate to the revised airframe.

I read recently that if they do a separate certification that the MAX can't then exist as its a grandfathered in certification off the original 737

banie01 wrote: »

It is, the MAX is intended to share a single type cert with the 737ng.

It's not that it can't exist if certified separately.
Rather that a full flight test, envelope exploration and certification programme would be needed.
It would no longer share the current single cockpit type rating with the rest of the 737 fleet.

The aircraft is hugely aerodynamically different from the Ng series and the sticking plaster approach of MCAS is IMO inherently unsuitable for the range of the flight envelope that Boeing applied it to, and that its application creep has undermined confidence in it.

Separate and new type certification is called for IMO as the difference between airframes is too prounounced and as its not a FBW airframe, reliance on a new software flight model isn't appropriate to the fault.

You’d imagine Ryanair would be livid!

banie01 wrote: »

The approach Boeing have taken in bringing this plane to market may well become one of those seminal decision making processes that becomes the example in future text books of how not to do it.

Its a great example of how short term, accountant based, cost cutting can completely destroy long term value for a company. But we'll see if business schools actually decide to come to that conclusion or not, in the current short term share price obsessed market.

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

As an engineer, I'm horrified by what I read about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters still got a return for cutting corners once this all plays out.

That's why we have punitive damages in tort cases - see the infamous Ford Pinto case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

In an idealistic world any punitive damages awarded would cancel out carefully planned bean counting. I'm reminded of this cartoon in the US however (where costs are often not awarded against the losers of a case):

Blut2 wrote: »

Its still too early for the full balance sheet damage (and resultant share price dip) to emerge, I think. We're only 90 odd days into the grounding at this stage. If the MAX stays grounded until January or longer as rumoured, and details of the (presumably steep) compensation they've had to pay airlines get out, I'd forsee a steeper drop in share price medium-term.

It is an awful shame Airbus can't pick up the slack though - thats really cushioning the blow for Boeing.

The issues with the KC-46 introduction and the delays due to poor QC and other issues along with the relatively unsuccessful military bids over the last few years have also yet to be priced in IMO.

Couple that with the US military starting to use a different maintenance model where other companies can bid to provide maintenance services and Boeing are facing erosion of even their safest cash flow streams.
AAC have taken on a huge amount of P8 maintenance as well as becoming Southwest's preferred 737 maintenance provider.

It's not just with the Max that Boeing have dropped the ball, they are facing price competition across their maintenance and support services too that will erode their margins significantly.

I imagine that lengthening the gear would mean they wouldn't retract into the bays. Any significant modification could go against the original type certificate requirements.

not1but4 wrote: »

Okay this may sound like a stupid question but if the whole issue is around the fact the new bigger engines are too close the ground why didn't they lengthen the landing gear? Is it because this would have caused too much of a resign on the air frame to house the landing gear?

Look at a picture of a 737 belly with the gear retracted , notice there is very little space between the two wheels . If you want to have longer gear you got to move the gears outboard which mean a whole new wingbox design which in turn sets a chain reaction of other required fuselage and pylon and wing modifications. Might aswell design a whole new a/c at that stage but airlines want single type crew and engineers to keep costs low so we end up with a compromise Frankenstein , a half century old design with new tech shoehorned in to save money.

L1011 wrote: »

Can't see it returning to service this year now. They'll need to do a further production rate cut due to space surely?

I a also wondering: for those planes which are already built and ready to be delivered to airlines (bar whichever fixes are required on them), can airlines say at this stage that they don’t want to take delivery of the plane anymore and ask for the sales contracts to be void with no cost for their airline.

I realise that it would be a huge impact for the airline as they have certified pilots/staff lined up and future flights scheduled for these planes, and that Airbus can deliver extra A320s in the short term. But let’s stay yet another problem pops-up next months and it starts looking like there is no hope of the plane being allowed to fly in the airline’s target market well into next year. Eventually won’t some airlines get tired of waiting? (Or use the threat of full cancellation to coerce Boeing into paying huge compensations)

L1011 wrote: »

Can't see it returning to service this year now. They'll need to do a further production rate cut due to space surely?

I would think they might have to actually stop production. They are even having to park them in their car park.

The fundamental issue is not about cancelling contracts for airlines - if they cancel the contract they will only be able to get on the end of the line for A320 neo’s. The industry is expanding rapidly but you can’t scale up production that rapidly, so Airbus can’t fulfil the orders. And it would be unwise for airbus to invest majorly in production facilities for what could be a 3-6 month delay. Even a 9-12 month delay for Boeing.

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

If a hardware change is required, expect many months of delays. In regulated products like this, hardware changes typically drive re-validation of all software that runs on it, not just the part that had an issue.

Typically and rightfully so but I'd hazard a guess before these unfortunate events Boeing had FAA approval to do as they saw fit. Hopefully things have changed.

Can aircraft be positioned elsewhere? I understand aircraft are grounded for commercial flights but are they still allowed fly?

The parking charges in some airports can't be great.

kmart6 wrote: »

California Dreamer wrote: »

Can aircraft be positioned elsewhere? I understand aircraft are grounded for commercial flights but are they still allowed fly?

The parking charges in some airports can't be great.

No.

As L1011 stated the FAA allows ferry and test flights.

The EASA allows any non commercial flights (it was initially limited to a single ferry flight up to 3 cycles to a place where corrective action could be carried out - but since amended) once there is a permit to fly issued under Part 21 of the Initial Airworthiness Directive.

SE-RTB was undertaking a Malaga-Stockholm ferry on the 11th (only to be denied entry to German airspace), subsequently diverting to Paris Vatry.

GM228 wrote: »

As L1011 stated the FAA allows ferry and test flights.

The EASA allows any non commercial flights (it was initially limited to a single ferry flight up to 3 cycles to a place where corrective action could be carried out - but since amended) once there is a permit to fly issued under Part 21 of the Initial Airworthiness Directive.

SE-RTB was undertaking a Malaga-Stockholm ferry on the 11th (only to be denied entry to German airspace), subsequently diverting to Paris Vatry.

The restriction is the aircraft must be flown below FL210 IIRC at flaps 1 (MCAS only activates when clean) so that aircraft would have been guzzling fuel.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/federal-prosecutors-issue-subpoena-for-boeing-787-dreamliner-records/

Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed records from Boeing relating to the production of the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, where there have been allegations of shoddy work, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

I presume with the 787 having been in the air, relatively trouble free apart from the 2013 battery issues, since 2011 there won't be much to find here in terms of new problems. But its still not a good look for Boeing.

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Will EASA now be looking more closely at Airbus in light of this?

Airbus don't self certify, the regulatory model and enforcement in Europe is night and day different.

I think, with Airbus, ATR, Leonardo, Dassault, Pilatus etc there’s a greater number of OEM’s in Europe, therefore there’s not the issue of those inspecting and regulating being solely reliant on one company (Boeing) for their jobs.

Then I think most crucially there’s the fact Airbus is spread across a number of different countries each with their own totally independent regulatory bodies, each independently inspecting, regulating and certifying the various elements of the business under their respective purview. These processes, certifications etc are then audited by EASA both on a scheduled and random basis, eg they’ll audit top to bottom every 2 years but can (& do) turn up unannounced at random to audit one part or the entirety of the regulator.

Also, Airbus has nowhere near the lobbying power in Europe that Boeing does in the US. In Germany, France, and to a lesser extent UK, Spain and Italy maybe, but most of the bloc has little interest or stake.

Boeing loses order for 30 with additional option for 20 from Flyadeal, the low-cost airline Saudi Arabian airline. They will switch to Airbus A320's.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48899588

L1011 wrote: »

Don't know where in the firing order those were, but losing close in sales now isn't as much of a loss as it seems because of the huge production backlog. Can get frames out to those who held on quicker

Aye at the end of the day the world needs both planes and the backlogs are nearly a decade long, so nothing much will change.

It seems like the order was never firmed up so not strictly a loss.

Ryland Hissing Lumbar wrote: »

Can anyone point me to a website that is tracking all the cancelled orders? Thanks.

Garuda Indonesia received 1 and cancelled the other 39 in March, 2019.

Flyadeal also cancelled 50 in the last 24 hours.

That's about 10 billion dollars for those lost orders so far.

Here is a graph showing delivery (green) and awaited orders.




And here is a list of all airlines and when they ordered etc.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries

Bob24 wrote: »

Very few European airlines on that list. Is it that they just don’t buy many planes in general at the moment, or they don’t like that specific one?

I'm more surprised that Lion Air is still awaiting delivery of any orders. I thought they would be first to cancel.