Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

AA has now pushed scheduling any Max flights until June, they have continually being pushing this back, but it seems as though it may well be at least late spring or early summer before the Max is able to fly passengers again.

wetoutside19 wrote: »

As I understand it these are not leaked, Boeing had to hand these documents over to the FAA and as part of their new and improved transparency strategy published them.

They decided to release them before the new CEO took the position to get them out of the way and try and give him a clean sheet in case they leaked in future, it was a risk/reward decision they took, not anything done out of their interest in transparency!

Inquitus wrote: »

New issue found in startup system check software, Analysts reckon the overall hit to Boeing is in the $20bn range now, excluding compensation to Airlines and dead Passengers:
]

I was going to post these last night when it broke, but didn't want to come across as a serious anti-boeing head.

I am seriously anti- poor QC, unsafe airframes and poor engineering.

What is quite interesting on another bad news day for Boeing is the continuing issues with the KC-46 and the USAF dissatisfaction and snag lists.
Letting aside the remote vision and cargo floor issues...
Over 500 "deficiencies" have been logged to date and the programme is years behind schedule.

The Airforce must be kicking themselves the Airbus bid "failed" at this point

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-17/boeing-s-calhoun-warned-by-air-force-that-it-s-not-happy-either

The tanker also has started combat testing conducted by Pentagon evaluators and so far “over 500 deficiencies have been tracked to date and we’ve only just begun” that evaluation, Goldfein wrote. A Boeing official said none of the deficiencies are of the most serious category.

Goldfein told Calhoun he expects lawmakers to question during fiscal 2021 budget hearings why the Air Force continues to take delivery of an aircraft “not meeting multiple key performance parameters and a host of other requirements.”

Without a change in course, Goldfein wrote, “we will not be able to answer positively and we will have to acknowledge our serious concerns in two areas -- trust and safety

Inquitus wrote: »

They basically reran the tender process over and over again until Boeing eventually won, on the constantly tweaked to favour Boeing criteria, so at the end of the day I don't have much sympathy for the USAF at this juncture!

That was kinda my point.
It's actually staggering however that Boeing took what was portrayed as basically being a COTS system with near immediate availability in the 767 and its military variants already in service and have managed to fúck it up this much!

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/20/737-max-crisis-boeing-seeks-to-borrow-10-billion-or-more.html

Boeing seeking a $10 Billion loan from creditors due Max crisis. The compensation claims from affected customers haven’t even landed yet.

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

Pronto63 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but RTE reporting that a 737, not a MAX obviously, slid off the runway in Istanbul yesterday.

Saw a whistleblower type documentary on Boeing from a couple of years back. This explained that the latest, at that time, 800 series were made using components cut and drilled by the latest computer controlled machinery.

When the program makers visited the component manufacturers this was not the case. This ment that the joints where the fuselage sections are joined were much weaker. At the time of making the program there had been 3, relatively minor, incidents where an 800 broke apart. These were hard landings and aircraft running out of runway type accidents.

Yesterday seems to be something similar.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0205/1113391-plane-crash-istanbul/

Already being discussed here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058051724

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