Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Boeing updates markets that it doesn't expect regulator approval until Jun/July, shares drop 5% and trading is suspended for the announcement.

Boeing is telling airlines and suppliers that it doesn’t expect regulators to sign off on the 737 Max until the middle of 2020, months later than the manufacturer previously expected.

The extended delay poses another headache for carriers who have already missed one peak travel season without the fuel-efficient planes.

Shares of the aircraft manufacturer fell after CNBC first reported the news just before 2 p.m. ET on Tuesday, dropping by more than 5% in mid-afternoon before trading was halted for Boeing’s announcement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/boeing-doesnt-expect-regulators-to-sign-off-on-737-max-until-june-or-july.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51200118

Boeing's new CEO, 16 days into the job has had the unenviable position of announcing the 1st full year loss since 1997, and only their 2nd full year loss since 1959!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-falls-to-full-year-loss-11580302091

About 6 months ago, there was an analyst report that predicted @$18 billion in cost to Boeing on foot of the Max debacle(Share on thread) that was dismissed by some as a very worst case scenario.
The CEO confirmed this expectation with this mornings results announcement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/business/boeing-737-max-costs.html
I'd fully expect total Max losses to run past $24 billion at this point, but thats just my armchair analysis.

The one thing I will highlight as a potential positive for Boeing and for Calhoun in particular was his performance on CNBC this morning where he killed speculation as to renaming the Max.
Calhoun has confirmed that Boeing will not seek to market their way out of this issue.
The airframe needs to be proven not just safe, but safer than every other airframe currently flying.




Boeing's problems with the KC-46 also continue with an expected 3yr wait before the USAF can actually deploy the KC-46 on Combat support duty.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/01/28/transcom-head-the-military-needs-to-figure-out-how-to-mitigate-kc-46-delays/

The USAF has a need for an additional 14 tanker squadrons to ensure sufficient force multipliers are available to counter perceived Russian and Chinese threats.
This leaves the USAF facing a difficult problem, keeping the urrent legacy KC-135s operational for the additional time is currently not possible due to Congress trying to eliminate lagacy platforms so it may well result in a commercial contract with whichever private operator is canny enough to buy up any tanker capable airframes.

That or go cap in hand to Airbus`/Northrop Grumman to try and come to a lease arrangement for the A330-MRTT and figure out where to build them.

With the KC-46 delays and ongoing quality issues, Boeing's issues have the potential to seriously affect the ability of the USAF to effectively deploy and fight.

Airborne tanker aircraft, such as the Boeing KC-135 are a very significant force multiplier. They can carry fuel so bomber and fighter aircraft can take off loaded with extra weapons instead of full fuel tanks. The tankers also increase the range and time loitering within or near the target areas by off-loading fuel when it is needed. Tankers can also be used to rapidly deploy fighters, bombers, SIGNET, Airborne Command Post, and cargo aircraft from the United States to the areas where they are needed. The force multiplier of a KC-135R can be anywhere from 1.5 to as much as 6 when used near the target area.

While us civilians may be wary about flying on the MAX, limiting the offensive power of the USAF is a far more concerning issue for Boeing's long term profitability IMO.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It's up to the FAA, EASA and other aviation authorities to give a certification to the MAX, only then will Boeing have their RTS date...

Which, is why.
It's misinformation

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If EASA start saying similar, then I'll start listening

FAA's credibility nearly as low as Boeing's.

This is the real issue at hand for Boeing IMO.

The FAA mishandled the certification and grandfathering of the MAX so poorly that other Certification bodies are seriously considering removing automatic reciprocal certification.

That could be hugely restrictive.

On a further Boeing related note and related to their cash pile.
Boeing's defence revenue has dropped, which is shocking in an age when the US is increasing its spending across the Board and when Lockheed, Raytheon, GD and others are all growing.

I posted a few months ago regarding Boeing trying to push upgraded F15s, not only have the US ponies up for an initial 8...
Boeing are trying to make a bid for the Indian fighter contract.

All the scrambling at the background and defence level is a sign IMO at least that Boeing are really in lockdown mode and trying to extract maximum return from obsolescent designs.

The US step back to a supposed tag team of F22/F35 mini AWACS, datalinked to missile carrying 4th gen is reminiscent of the UKs Tornado ADV/Hawk concept of the 80's.

It's a desperate ploy to peddle airframes and gain cash.

In a rising US defence market, Boeing's share and overall revenue is falling.

Damien360 wrote: »

Could that really happen ? I could imagine the FAA doing the same back against Airbus. No justification other than political. The financial numbers are enormous and I couldn’t see that scenario arise.

Since the FAA certification process has been found to be seriously lacking I can see why other certification bodies would want some form of independent review of both the FAA certification process to ensure it is fit for purpose and aircraft certification to make sure their certification has not been impacted by a deficient certification process.

FishOnABike wrote: »

Since the FAA certification process has been found to be seriously lacking I can see why other certification bodies would want some form of independent review of both the FAA certification process to ensure it is fit for purpose and aircraft certification to make sure their certification has not been impacted by a deficient certification process.

I understand that but there are bigger things at play here. An awful lot of money and politics going on.

FAA are very much all American and have had their reputation badly damaged. But first and foremost, they are American and American jobs will come first. They will issue a statement of new intent and governance, and with that their word is bond. Why, because politically and financially, the US administration will want this and will make it happen.

Looks like Airbus have finally decided to take advantage of the sitution and increase A320 production, albeit small scale:

The aerospace group also confirmed it was discussing “further ramp-up potential” for the A320 program beyond a rate of 63 planes per month. It already sees a “clear path” to further increase the monthly production rate by one or two planes that would mean it could produce 67 planes per month, by 2023.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/13/airbus-to-ramp-up-production-as-boeing-is-embroiled-in-737-max-crisis.html

Boeing's problems mean the board of directors are under the microscope, makes you think that the downfall of Boeing was only a matter of time when you consider that they decided to chase profits over safety, and ultimately not aim to be the best aircraft manufacturer in the world...

Seattle Times

Instead of building a new airplane, he said, Boeing cut costs by adding big new engines to an existing 737 airframe to create the MAX. Muilenburg and Boeing’s pliable board then redirected at least some of the company’s R&D savings into more than $43 billion of stock buybacks that drove up stock values in recent years

Fritzbox wrote: »

But the MAX flew for around 800,000 hours in commercial service and none of the airlines ever complained about the location of the engines or the aerodynamics. Problems ensued with the flight control systems - which is/has been rectified - allegedly.

Very true,and often disregarded in the current scrum.

It appears that some 350 Max 8's were in service,with very little feedback readily available as to how they were performing generally.

We do know that some Pilots were concerned at the Max 8's characteristics,and more specifically the lack of specific training available,but that still leaves a lot of cycles operated without incident ?

Without doubt,Industry has been awakened to the conflicts between High Finance (Investor returns) and Good (Expensive) Engineering,with Regulation remaining as the weak spot in the Max 8 story.

Who watched the Watchers ?

Fritzbox wrote: »

But the MAX flew for around 800,000 hours in commercial service and none of the airlines ever complained about the location of the engines or the aerodynamics. Problems ensued with the flight control systems - which is/has been rectified - allegedly.

Not quite true. NASA has a confidential online reporting system outside the FAA or NTSB purview. They received two separate complaints of B38Ms diving for the deck uncommanded shortly after takeoff in the months leading up to Lion Air, and shared that data. It is another mark against the FAA and Boeing.

Edit: I think it used to be called FSAP, its called ASRS now. In a country where the regulator and ANSP are under the same roof, NASA wanted to provide an alternative method of filing a safety report. Excellent idea imo. Here's the link https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html

TomSweeney wrote: »

So when should this plane be back flying ?

Probably September: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/business/boeing-737-max.html

ZX7R wrote: »

I find you post and many other posts quite funny.
It will probably be the safest plane in the world once it's certified by everyone

I know this and logically I can accept it, but these things aren't rational ..

TomSweeney wrote: »

June/July according to that ...



damn it, I have a Norwegian air flight booked .... really hope it's not the Max..

Even if it's July that the FAA certify it, then it has to go to all the other authorities to certify.
And for example, Ryanair won't add any new aircraft to the fleet during peak season...

So no matter what it could be at least October 2020 before they're added to commercial schedules..

Rawr wrote: »

Seeing the photos of the parked MAX'es makes me wonder about one practical issue.

Assuming that one day this year the MAX gets the green light from the regulators, I wonder if there would be a resulting scramble to get ferry flights sorted, which in turn would cause a huge jump in traffic (and possibly delays).

I'm kind of imagining large flying wings of MAX aircraft crossing the Atlantic to get to their bases. (I know that's probably not how it would work...it's just how my imagination works )

I assume there'll be work to be done on them before they can be released to service.

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Regardless if they are released back into service, I will leave it a couple of years before I venture onto one. Will be paying much more attention to type when booking flights and pay the bit extra if I have to.

I wouldn't think twice about it if they get certified. If you drive, I'll bet you don't think twice about getting behind the wheel, even though the likelihood of you dying in a car crash is several million time greater than of dying in a plane crash.

errlloyd wrote: »

I could be wrong, and if there is one forum I am going to get rinsed on it is this one.

But...

Per passenger mile - Aircraft much safer.
Per passenger hour - Aircraft marginally safer.
Per journey - Car journeys safer.

If you gave a rational actor the choice between driving from New York to LA and flying from New York to LA they would quite rationally accept that flying was much safer. They'd be less anxious about it etc.

But when you are comparing fear of flying to fear of driving a car, you're usually comparing a long flight to a very short car journey. In that case the flight is more dangerous.

Yeah, you are wrong. 2.1 crashes per 1,000,000 departures, according to the Swiss. The odds of you dying in a plane crash are one in 15,000,000 - so as likely as winning Euromillions.

The National Safety Council compiled an odds-of-dying table for 2008, which further illustrates the relative risks of flying and driving safety. It calculated the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident to be 1 in 98 for a lifetime. For air and space transport (including air taxis and private flights), the odds were 1 in 7,178 for a lifetime, according to the table.

ah jaysus lads!!!
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51499777

When they are certified I presume they will do test flights, and test conditions, or will they just lash them back out to service and use passengers as guinea pigs ?

I am flying Norwegian BCN-OSL-EVE return 30/June - 9 July, according to my booking it is a 737 800 but if the MAX is back, I assume that could be changed.

Really don't want to be one of the earlier test batches....

Surprised that the fuel tanks of dormant planes were checked for debris, especially given there's no short-term plan to get them flying again.

The cynic in me thinks that this was "discovered" previously, and it's just opportune to reveal it now. The tanks definitely aren't the dirtiest bit of the MAX programme.

How will this impact on Ryanair? The longer the max’s return to service is delayed and more information becomes available on the various problems and Q.C. issues with this aircraft, can only continue to erode public confidence in the Max. Ryanair must be getting increasingly worried about passenger confidence/attitudes to the Max the longer this is dragged out.

Worst case scenario – the delays continue into early 2021 and all the while more and more problems are discovered with the design and quality control process until Boeing eventually bites the bullet and announces they are scrapping the whole program. Would Ryanair have a plan in place to deal with this, given that there are no more 737’ NGs under construction and Airbus replacements would be years away?