Boeing 737 Max ?

[PickleB]

Boeing 737 MAX customers signal caution
:

A day after Boeing Co BA.N received approval for its 737 MAX to fly again following a 20-month grounding, its two largest U.S. and European customers signaled caution on their order books as they monitor demand in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

U.S. based Southwest Airlines LUV.N, Boeing's largest customer worldwide, said this week it would just take new MAX jets to replace jets it's retiring rather than grow its fleet, and on Thursday raised the prospect of scaling back its fleet due to the pandemic.

“If demand is going to be persistently depressed, we can retire and not need to take airplanes as replacements,” Southwest Chief Executive Gary Kelly told journalists.

When the 737 MAX was grounded globally in March 2019 following two fatal crashes, airlines canceled flights because they lacked enough airplanes to meet strong travel demand.

Now many have parked jets or even gone out of business in the pandemic, creating challenges for Boeing as it tries to find homes for 737 MAX jets that are built but now lack buyers.

A senior executive of Boeing's largest European customer, low-cost carrier Ryanair RYA.I, said on Thursday that it is not currently looking at additional orders for the jet, but may buy more if prices fall in the wake of COVID-19...

[Ed875]

As a former RAF tech I found it quite unbelievable an aircraft was deemed safe to fly where a control system which relied on a single sensor could overide/overcome the pilot; whoever dreamed that one up should not be in aviation.

However this is not the first time the 737 family has been in trouble stemming from the choice of engine; thinking Kegworth.

Also read in the news today another design failure was identified during the investigation, in that separate lanes of system control were found to be to close together; again this goes back to lessons learned from past disasters; think it was a DC10 which cartwheeled down a runway while trying an emergency landing after loosing all control of the rear control surfaces following a no. 2 engine blade letting go breaching the case and cutting though all the hydraulic lines to those surfaces as they were bunched together.

Lessons of the past should be overlooked with peril.

Mind the amount of scrutiny the a/c has undergone its likely to be one of the safer ones now.

[Hood]

Think it will be a couple of accident free years before I venture onto one of those.
I'm not sure if BA had a big order of those or not.

[PickleB]

Think it will be a couple of accident free years before I venture onto one of those.
I'm not sure if BA had a big order of those or not.

Google is your friend...Deal For 200 Boeing 737 MAXs:

British Airways told staff it could close its London Gatwick base, raising questions about the 200 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft that the airline’s parent, IAG, signed a letter of intent to buy.

Gatwick was due to receive the first part of the MAX aircraft from IAG’s LOI placed last summer and still valid as of February, the group said.

Unlike airlines now deferring aircraft deliveries, IAG’s MAX aircraft are not due in the immediate future. IAG requested delivery slots between 2023-2027. That could see the MAX arrive after IAG expects markets to finally rebound from the coronavirus downturn...

[PickleB]

Boeing to pay $2.5bn:

Boeing has agreed to pay $2.5bn (£1.8bn) to settle US criminal charges that it hid information from safety officials about the design of its 737 Max planes.

The US Justice Department said the firm chose "profit over candour", impeding oversight of the planes, which were involved in two deadly crashes.

About $500m will go to families of the 346 people killed in the tragedies.

Boeing said the agreement acknowledged how the firm "fell short"...

[RichS]

20% to the hundreds of families who lost loved ones due to Boeing “falling short”! Where is the remaining 80% going?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Saint-Just]

20% to the hundreds of families who lost loved ones due to Boeing “falling short”! Where is the remaining 80% going?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The state. It’s a fine. Then it will become a subvention. To Boeing.

And all will be perfectly normal again...

[mrsammyp]

I see a 737 has just gone missing in Indonesia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boss13]

I see a 737 has just gone missing in Indonesia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sad news... This time seems a regular rather than max?

[mrsammyp]

737-500


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tixntox]

I see a 737 has just gone missing in Indonesia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Pickle fork" problems perhaps? https://www.engineering.com/Advanced...kle-Forks.aspx

EDIT:- 500 series so not applicable as following post. Thank you.

[Sinnlover]

"Pickle fork" problems perhaps? https://www.engineering.com/Advanced...kle-Forks.aspx

I thought this issue had be rectified on the 737NG? This is a 500 series so the pickle fork issue was not an issue with this aircraft.
The 737 has had numerous issues throughout its production life
Some were sorted some not.
The rudder reversal issue was sorted
The turbine blade failures were resolved
Pickle forks were picked up and sorted during maintenance
Things still an issue include the undercarriage being a bit week for the new all up weights - they seem to suffer undercarriage collapse more than other airliners.
The undercarriage being too short meaning over rotation is a real possibility, leading to tail strike and possible structural issues. This is an inherent issue carried over from aircraft's origins - the 707.
If this is an accident with 500 series it’s an old aircraft and most have been retired now. All indications seem to point to break up in mid air currently, I wonder if it’s a similar issue that brought down the TWA 747? Lots of wiring goes through the fuel tanks on these old ‘classic’ 737s

[PickleB]

And it's not just the 737 where they have difficulties...Boeing managers admit problems

Two software errors detected after launch of a Boeing Starliner crew ship during an unpiloted test flight last December, one of which prevented a planned docking with the International Space Station, could have led to catastrophic failures had they not been caught and corrected in time, NASA said Friday.

An independent review board “found the two critical software defects were not detected ahead of flight despite multiple safeguards,” according to an agency statement. “Ground intervention prevented loss of vehicle in both cases.”...

13 valves failed to open on Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft:

Boeing said Monday that the problem that scrubbed the launch of its Starliner spacecraft last week was caused when 13 valves in its propulsion system failed to properly open during a preflight test, a more widespread issue than was previously known.

Over the weekend, engineers were able to open seven of those valves and restore them to working order, the company said, and it is still hopeful that it could launch the test flight by the end of the month. But Boeing still does not know what caused the problem, which forced yet another delay in a program that has been plagued by serious issues for years...

[tixntox]

............... and there's more:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59420570

It just plain stinks doesn't it? Your life in their hands?

[PickleB]

............... and there's more:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57028687

It just plain stinks doesn't it? Your life in their hands?

From that article: "Boeing and the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration say they are working closely". Wasn't their relationship part of the problem in the first place?

[tixntox]

From Boeing :-

"The in-service reliability is greater than 99%, and is consistent with other commercial airplane models".

Surely not all the brand spanking new ones? That would make flying a bit of a lottery in terms of safety. One in a hundred, on a new aeroplane, not good odds IMHO.

[Tatters]

There is a huge difference between 99.01 % and 99.99 % reliability, yet both are greater than 99 %.

[Chris_in_the_UK]

From Boeing :-

"The in-service reliability is greater than 99%, and is consistent with other commercial airplane models".

Surely not all the brand spanking new ones? That would make flying a bit of a lottery in terms of safety. One in a hundred, on a new aeroplane, not good odds IMHO.

Given they claim 24,000 flights per day for Boeing aircraft.

[pacifichrono]

Mrs. PC and I faced "triple jeopardy" a couple weeks ago returning from Hawaii. Our scheduled return flight aboard Alaska Airlines was cancelled the day before departure. We had the option of spending another ten hours at the small Maui airport, then catching a plane to Seattle (arriving at 6am), then transferring to another plane four hours later for the final 1,200 mile flight to San Diego.

Instead, we opted to fly nonstop on our original schedule to San Diego with Southwest Airlines instead of Alaska.

The "triple jeopardy:"

1. The flight was on Southwest, which has recently been grounded by numerous maintenance failures.
2. The Captain of our plane was a woman.
3. The plane was a 737 MAX 8.

We had a perfect flight, early arrival, and an 'excellent' landing in San Diego by our pilot.

[Raffe]

2.

[Yorkshiremadmick]

They use auto pilot for Take off and Landing don’t they? Unless it’s bad then manually take off & land.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Sinnlover]

They use auto pilot for Take off and Landing don’t they? Unless it’s bad then manually take off & land.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

The opposite actually
They will take off under manual control, auto pilot gets switched on when the gear is up.
And they land manually unless the visibility is down to minimums. (Auto pilot switched off around 1000 feet)

[tixntox]

[*]The Captain of our plane was a woman.[*]The plane was a 737 MAX 8.[/LIST]
We had a perfect flight, early arrival, and an 'excellent' landing in San Diego by our pilot.

Maybe this one? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjJXxurSZ8o

Cool as a cucumber!

[TKH]

“Downfall” the MAX story now out on Netflix…

All i can say is wow…staggering and shocking.

[ELD1970]

“Downfall” the MAX story now out on Netflix…

All i can say is wow…staggering and shocking.

Thanks just watched it…very good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boss13]

Will give this a watch too. Thanks.

[tixntox]

Tui are all smiles:-

https://www.tui.co.uk/destinations/i...7-max-aircraft

[mikeveal]

1. The flight was on Southwest, which has recently been grounded by numerous maintenance failures.
2. The Captain of our plane was a woman.
3. The plane was a 737 MAX 8.

How disgracefully sexist! Hang your head in shame.
Women make excellent pilots.
There are no roundabouts & no parallel parking for them to worry about afterall.

[paw3001]

The Netflix documentary is quite telling and what happened to Boeing could parallel many other companies that use to live their vision and values before transitioning to only paying them lip service because the CEO only becomes interested in driving maximum shareholder value before anything else.

Whilst I believe value is essential, I do believe it could be better balanced between quality product, care for people and organic value increases.

[mikeveal]

The Netflix documentary is quite telling and what happened to Boeing could parallel many other companies that use to live their vision and values before transitioning to only paying them lip service because the CEO only becomes interested in driving maximum shareholder value before anything else.

Whilst I believe value is essential, I do believe it could be better balanced between quality product, care for people and organic value increases.

Having worked in development for coming up to 30 years, I can tell you that the practise is endemic.
Once, the comapny was the sum of the products it produces. By investing in development of better products and in better manufacturing you gained comapny value. That is no longer true, the company itself is now the product any material goods or services it produces are, well, immaterial. "Growth" is achieved by minimising expenditure and expanding your product range by acquiring failing companies.
Execs are focussed primarily on quarterly returns, if you can not show a return on investment in under two quarters it is extremely difficult to get funding. Products I work on have a design cycle of a couple of years, so I am, um, unpopular. I can only imagine how bad it must be for engineers working on something with a design cycle as long as an aircraft.

[markrlondon]

only becomes interested in driving maximum shareholder value before anything else.

However, they are failing to do this due to short termism. Maximum shareholder value can only meaningfully or usefully be measured in the longer run. This is where sustainable, genuinely growing wealth comes from.

Execs are focussed primarily on quarterly returns, if you can not show a return on investment in under two quarters it is extremely difficult to get funding. Products I work on have a design cycle of a couple of years, so I am, um, unpopular. I can only imagine how bad it must be for engineers working on something with a design cycle as long as an aircraft.

It's strange, isn't it. In this immature rush for short termism, they are threatening the longer term survival of not only the company but, eventually, even their own careers and the economy on which their careers depend.

[reggie747]

In this immature rush for short termism, they are threatening the longer term survival of not only the company but, eventually, even their own careers and the economy on which their careers depend.

That is the out and out nature of selfish, greedy barstewards though innit ?

[markrlondon]

That is the out and out nature of selfish, greedy barstewards though innit ?

No, I'd say not. The real greed is to build up wealth for the longer term. It is the longer term approach that makes you more powerful, richer, more successful. It creates dynasties and really does pay you back.

If you are greedy for real power, you look at the longer term.

Short termism is just immaturity, a sign of childish and simplistic thinking. It is incompetent 'greed' for five year olds. A fool's paradise.

[mikeveal]

It isn't short termism. They have a long term strategy:

Take control of company X.
Improve bottom line by starving it of investment.
Sell for profit after 3ish years.

Use increased funds to take control of larger company Y.
Improve bottom line by starving it of investment.
Sell for profit after 3ish years.

Use increased funds to take control of larger company Z.
Improve bottom line by starving it of investment.
Sell for profit after 3ish years.

...

[markrlondon]

It isn't short termism. They have a long term strategy:

A series of short term strategies does not make a long term strategy.

And one should not confuse the MO of some private equity or other similar funds with (mis-)management and incompetence in general.

There are different problems going on that easily become conflated.

[mikeveal]

A series of short term strategies does not make a long term strategy.

And one should not confuse the MO of some private equity or other similar funds with (mis-)management and incompetence in general.

There are different problems going on that easily become conflated.

You are missing my point. Their long term strategy is to become very rich, all they need to do is repeat the sequence four or five times. The product they sell is not the commodities the company makes, the staff, or the services. It's the company.It's a very effective strategy. Sadly it kills the companies subjected to it, but hey, as long as the CEO makes a bundle.

[markrlondon]

You are missing my point.

No, I didn't miss your point; I was disagreeing with it.

I was disagreeing with it in large part because you were conflating separate things. You seemed to be referring to private equity funds (ones that use the serial pump and dump methodology to which you referred) with corporate company management, which was the subject of my earlier comment. Two different things.

The illnesses are similar (and neither one is long term sustainable, even if a relative few get rich in the short term) but the entities and operational models are different.

[Raffe]

No, I didn't miss your point; I was disagreeing with it.

I was disagreeing with it in large part because you were conflating separate things. You seemed to be referring to private equity funds (ones that use the serial pump and dump methodology to which you referred) with corporate company management, which was the subject of my earlier comment. Two different things.

The illnesses are similar (and neither one is long term sustainable, even if a relative few get rich in the short term) but the entities and operational models are different.

Tell me you have no clue what a private equity fund is or does without telling me that you have no clue what a private equity fund is or does.

[markrlondon]

Tell me you have no clue what a private equity fund is or does without telling me that you have no clue what a private equity fund is or does.

<sigh>

Rather than seeking approbation from the crowd by belittling other people, as you very commonly do and as you are attempting to do here, why not try a more positive approach.

Why not point out why my comment was actually incorrect, if it was incorrect. Why not say what a private equity fund really is, if you really think I used the terminology incorrectly.

Except of course I didn't use the term incorrectly, did I. A private equity fund is exactly what I implied: An investment fund that (amongst other strategies) may buy companies, restructure them, and resell them.

Such funds have, rightly or wrongly, become notorious in the common view for gutting companies so as to generate short term profitability (thus allowing a profitable trade sale at what is in effect an artificially inflated price) whilst destroying the companies' long term sustainability. It is this behaviour (whether common or rare) that was the subject of earlier comments.

Now, rather than snarking, rather than seeking attention, rather than poking fun for the sole purpose of making yourself look good, why not engage in a positive manner if you think I am mistaken on any of these points.

[Raffe]

<sigh>

Rather than seeking approbation from the crowd by belittling other people, as you very commonly do and as you are attempting to do here, why not try a more positive approach.

Why not point out why my comment was actually incorrect, if it was incorrect. Why not say what a private equity fund really is, if you really think I used the terminology incorrectly.

Except of course I didn't use the term incorrectly, did I. A private equity fund is exactly what I implied: An investment fund that (amongst other strategies) may buy companies, restructure them, and resell them.

Such funds have, rightly or wrongly, become notorious in the common view for gutting companies so as to generate short term profitability (thus allowing a profitable trade sale at what is in effect an artificially inflated price) whilst destroying the companies' long term sustainability. It is this behaviour (whether common or rare) that was the subject of earlier comments.

Now, rather than snarking, rather than seeking attention, rather than poking fun for the sole purpose of making yourself look good, why not engage in a positive manner if you think I am mistaken on any of these points.

LOLZ.

[Dynam0humm]

The Netflix documentary is quite telling and what happened to Boeing could parallel many other companies that use to live their vision and values before transitioning to only paying them lip service because the CEO only becomes interested in driving maximum shareholder value before anything else.

Whilst I believe value is essential, I do believe it could be better balanced between quality product, care for people and organic value increases.

Reminiscent of when Ford released the Pinto in the US and they discovered that a 20mph rear end shunt could jam the doors and rupture the fuel tank causing fiery death.

Senior management did a cost review of recalling the cars already built and modifiying later ones vs how many were expected to die if they did nothing and the cost of subsequent court settlements, and concluded it was cheaper to do nothing.

[PickleB]

Alaska Airlines grounds Boeing 737 Max 9:

Alaska Airlines has grounded all Boeing 737 Max 9 planes after a window and a chunk of fuselage blew out on one of the aircraft in mid-air shortly after takeoff.

An Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 had to make an emergency landing shortly after taking off from Portland, Oregon, on Friday.

The airline said the plane, carrying 174 passengers and six crew members, landed safely.

“Alaska Airlines flight 1282 from Portland, Oregon, to Ontario, California, experienced an incident this evening soon after departure,” the company said.

On Saturday morning the company said it had taken the “precautionary step of temporarily grounding our fleet of 65 Boeing Max-9 aircraft”...

[tixntox]

Luckily, no-one was sitting in the adjacent seat. "Goldfinger" comes to mind! Nurse............... suction?

[craig1912]

Apparently the same plane had a pressurisation issue a few days ago. It’s only been flying a couple of months…Boeing quality control??

https://x.com/rawsalerts/status/1743...UjSfk3wNKk_-Zg



No end of issues with the Max and people still say it’s one of the safest planes in the world!

[PickleB]

For info:

• Wiki
  
  
• FAA (scroll down)
  
  
• Flight tracker

[craig1912]

171 grounded (obviously a specific variant)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67903655

[JGJG]

For anyone not familiar with the Blancolirio channel on YouTube, get involved. He has some content up on this already.

[AshUK]

Love the tweet from the FAA 'after the crew reported a pressurization issue.' Understatement of the year....

I was on a flight back from Miami to Portland (different type of plane) on Friday in seat 26A and missus in 26B - the seats where the door came off. Makes me shudder wondering what would have happened if someone (us) had been sitting there. I know the flight was fairly quiet, but it amazes me no one was in those seats - i know they are desirable seats due to the extra legroom, and every flight I have taken recently they have all been taken early on, however I've also noticed Alaska charging extra now to be seated there, so I wonder if that will continue.

Just checked my flight for tomorrow back to Florida - 737 Max - seat 17A (exit row ) Guess i'll have to wait and see what plane they swap us over to, given they've all been grounded. Better pack a sweater for the flight too...

[Kingstepper]

A reminder to stay belted whilst in the seat.

[PickleB]

Meanwhile, back in December...Boeing urges 737 Max inspections for possible loose bolt:

...The airplane maker called for the inspections after an international operator discovered a bolt with a missing nut, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.

An airplane's rudder is used to control the aircraft while in flight.

"The issue identified on the particular airplane has been remedied," Boeing said.

"Out of an abundance of caution, we are recommending operators inspect their 737 Max airplanes and inform us of any findings. We informed the FAA and our customers and will continue to keep them aware of the progress."...