
Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review - prmph
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/europe-says-737-max-won-t-fly-until-its-design-review-complete
======
MobileVet
Good. Hold them accountable and make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t
happen again. Although a ‘same plane’ cert was a good goal, they should have
made sure it was truly accurate instead of bending the case to make it so.

This may be as close to an ‘open and shut’ case for corporate gross negligence
as we will find in quite a while (at least I hope so).

I would hate to see them go under but it should be clear that this type of
corner cutting is unacceptable and future manufacturers of all kinds should
think twice before stretching to put a round peg in a square hole....
especially with lives on the line.

~~~
nocturnial
And how are they going to be held accountable?

They already have several contracts which states victims can't sue the
company. Maybe not everyone signed, but then it's about how much they can pay
their lawyers.

~~~
peteretep
> They already have several contracts which states victims can't sue the
> company

Contracts with whom? A member country EU court with a dead passenger could
presumably make life very very uncomfortable for senior Boeing management.

~~~
nocturnial
I wrote victim and not dead passenger as you falsely implied.

The contracts are with the surviving familing members. If you don't consider
them as victims then give me another word for it.

edit: If you downvote me at least give me a chance to defend why I chose the
word victim. The reply gizmo is there.

~~~
freehunter
The definition of victim implies the same as "dead passenger". The families of
dead passengers would be stretching the definition, at the very least it's not
the most obvious definition in this case

>a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or
other event or action

"Victim's family" is how people would normally refer to them.

~~~
nocturnial
Ok fine "victim's family". I stand corrected. It's not like when we change the
words to describe it, is going to change how they feel.

------
radcon
Is anyone else extremely reluctant to fly on a Boeing plane after this?

A lot of people say _" It's no big deal, they just need to update the MCAS
software"_, but I see this entire situation as a sign of much deeper issues at
Boeing, issues that can't be fixed with a simple software update and could
affect every plane they make.

~~~
retSava
The MCAS will likely be fixed in a way that makes it reliable and dependable.
Boeing wouldn't dare anything else since there are a lot of eyes on them and
how they handle this now.

What worries me is not the MCAS (now), but what else might be lurking under
the surface that Boeing pretends is not a problem.

I don't feel confident that Boeing would accept the cost of grounding the
fleet the next time something serious-but-not-yet-crashing shows up. It's
clear that to Boeing, their numbers are more important than lives.

~~~
atonse
Unless you start putting Boeing executives in jail, there is literally ZERO
incentive for them not to repeat all this. In fact, the CEO and senior
executives have probably already received their massive bonuses for the MAX
sales. It's not like they're going to be asked to return those bonuses now
with all this fiasco.

~~~
evanagon
There are financial incentives if their customers choose competing products
because of safety concerns.

~~~
dstola
I dont think people will all of a sudden start ditching cheap flights just to
avoid the max or Boeing. Airline industry is extremely price sensitive from a
consumer perspective, and for people to potentially sacrifice hundreds of
dollars of savings would be a non sequitur.

For example, if airline A flies MAX and has a ticket for 200 and another
airline B has the same route for 400 on A320, most people I know would still
fly the MAX because they cant afford to be picky.

I think talking with your wallet works only when the price is relatively
inelastic

~~~
polotics
Here is one data point for you: no matter the price of alternatives, I will
not step on a 737. Ever.

~~~
munk-a
If you purchase a plane ticket for a flight that appears to be carried by a
bombardier model, would you refuse to board the plane at the gate if the
bombardier plane ended up requiring maintenance and they swapped it out for a
737?

How many vacation days would you sacrifice out of your week in Cancun to stand
by that belief?

------
hu3
A slap in the face to the comments that were dismissing concerns as
overreactions and stating that 737-MAX would return to operation shortly. Not
in EU at least.

~~~
hef19898
As far as I know this is one of the rare few, read I can't recall one,
occasions in which EASA didn't accept FAA certification. Usually it is cross-
certification between the two. Things are getting interesting and not
necessarily in a good way as cooperation is reduced. That it makes sense in
this special case is only further proof.

~~~
mikejb
I think EASA doesn't trust the FAA here because the FAA had less involvement
in the original certification than some are comfortable with. So rather that
asking the FAA to certify the entire plane and maybe risk a similar procedure
(Boeing self-certifies most of it), they'll do it themselves.

What I'm curious is whether EASA has similar certification shortcu...
optimizations for Airbus.

~~~
anoncake
I hope they don't. But Boeing not being trustworthy does not mean that Airbus
isn't.

~~~
rootusrootus
Just over a year ago Airbus paid a fine to Germany for bribery. So it appears
they have their own corruption problems.

~~~
actuator
Wasn't that for sales though?

~~~
rootusrootus
I'm not sure I'm willing to narrow the goalposts that much just so I can
absolve Airbus from misbehaving. And that's just the most recent example easy
to find with a quick Google search.

~~~
anoncake
Of course Airbus misbehaved and is probably still misbehaving in some manner.
The question is whether they are misbehaving when it comes to safety.

------
ulfw
Good. Which it should have done and should from now on do for all 'self-
certified' Boeing airplanes.

~~~
bilbo0s
It still kills me that they let Boeing 'self-certify' their own airplanes.

I had a diagnostic medical imaging startup. You can't even imagine the pain
the FDA inflicted on our bottom line before they would give an OK on anything.
But the FAA is out there just taking the word of some company's engineers that
"Yeah. We're good."?

I guess I just thought that all of the regulation, was like it was in the
healthcare field. Guess not.

~~~
seren
On the other hand, if you can submit a "new" medical device through the 510k
process, it is the device manufacturer that certifies that the new equipment
is equivalent to an existing product. That is mostly comparable to what Boeing
did.

~~~
bilbo0s
You can say that it is equivalent, but the FDA will still make you prove it
with the relevant tests and documentation.

And look, I'm not saying it's wrong that Boeing has it a lot easier than I
did. I'm just asking what's the justification? In my case I get it. Imagine
you're submitting a device that shoots high levels of radiation, at extremely
high power, into the human body to kill cancer cells?

Well yeah. I understand. The FDA doesn't care that you believe this device is
the same as the last one.

You're shooting high yield radiation...

At levels fatal to humans...

In the middle of a hospital...

Which itself is potentially in the middle of a population center?

OK, yeah, I get it. They're gonna check the new device as thoroughly as they
checked the old one. No one wants the equivalent of a dirty bomb going off in
some small town. I'm not complaining about that.

I even understand that Boeing doesn't shoot radiation all over the place, so
maybe things can be a bit more lenient? I get that maybe that was the
justification? But here's the thing, Boeing can still kill people, as is
plainly evident. Why is the government being so lax on them, while at the same
time giving my RTP product the equivalent of a regulatory colonoscopy?

I mean, if anything, both products should get the regulatory colonoscopy.

------
yaseer
I'm curious to see how passengers will react to flying via 737-max. Will
ticket prices be lowered to reflect the inevitable wariness of flying in one
again?

~~~
SomeHacker44
I will not fly the 737 MAX unless and until it has its own type certificate...
and even then not for at least 3-4 years of commercial service under that
condition.

It is easy to see the scheduled type of aircraft when you book tickets.

~~~
riffraff
> It is easy to see the scheduled type of aircraft when you book tickets.

is it? I've never noticed it.

I guess it's possible to infer it by the seat configuration when you get to
choose it, but I never saw "you'll be flying XYZ" when I booked tickets in the
past.

~~~
CaptainZapp
seatguru.com is your friend.

Note, though, that planes can be swaped on short notice, or no notice at all.

------
lagadu
Looks like the EASA finally figured out that the FAA can't be trusted with
matters regarding Boeing.

~~~
nocturnial
A diplomat would say we could trust the FAA but now they need to be verified.

~~~
anoncake
A diplomat would say that while the FAA tests planes to the highest standards,
there's no harm in testing to the highest standards twice.

------
leemailll
BTW, 3 major China airlines formally demand compensation for 737max from
Boeing
([https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48362283](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48362283))

------
princekolt
Let's hope this debacle will finally convince Boeing it can't keep reusing the
same airframe - with small adjustments - for half a century.

Edit: Don't forget the 737 airframe was already a modified 727 airframe...

Also, I wonder how this will affect the Boeing-Embraer partnership. It would
certainly be cheaper to spec-up an E-Jet to have the capacity of a 737 than to
design a new airframe from scratch.

~~~
rootusrootus
The 737 was not a modified 727. They reused some pieces. In particular they
chose the same fuselage cross-section. This is pretty normal and I prefer it
over offering all-new designs.

Also, the E195 has less than half the capacity of the largest 737. That would
be a hell of an extension.

------
linuxftw
Booked a flight for later this summer (US). United apparently thinks the Max
is going back in service sooner than later, at least the MAX-9. I decided to
take a less desirable iternary and more expensive flights to avoid that
aircraft. Clearly the FAA is signaling to someone that this is all going to
blow over. Does anyone actually expected the Boeing's to fail the
investigation? I don't. Business as usual: "We identified what happend, won't
happen again, promises"

I won't be flying on one anytime soon if I can help it.

------
mmrezaie
I flied to Cyprus from Stockholm with Norwegian last week. On the plane it was
written 737-800 or 737 Max. I wonder how you can tell them apart and if
Norwegian uses the Max line!?

~~~
icegreentea2
EDIT: Lol, nevermind. Go read the child comments. I failed.

There are two features you can look for:

[https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48929/is-
this-a...](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48929/is-
this-a-737-800-or-737-max-8)

tl;dr on the MAX the wing tips split into two (above and below the main wing),
on all previous 737s, the wingtips only curve up. Also the engine cowling has
some cool looky jaggies on the trailing edge.

~~~
xaqfox
That winglet design is not specific to the MAX aircraft. That CFM engine is
also used on Airbus NEO.

~~~
icegreentea2
I had not seen the split winglet on non-MAX 737s. I stand corrected. I did
mean the CFM engine as a distinguisher between 737 models, not as a
identifying feature for 737 MAX vs all other 2 engine smallish jets.

------
_bxg1
And I won't fly on one until Europe completes its own design review.

------
sealthedeal
IMHO anytime an airline releases a statement that says "we have updated our
software", its basically the same thing as saying, "Im sorry, but our plane
was unstable because of buggy code, hopefully this patch will make sure our
planes dont go down." That is scary, software developers make errors, and when
your plane is going down because of software related issue, THAT IS A HUGE
PROBLEM.

~~~
rootusrootus
If we on HN are being consistent, we should appreciate an airline that offers
frequent over-the-air software updates. We love it when Tesla does it...

~~~
slenk
We do?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19443925](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19443925)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17991905](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17991905)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16808171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16808171)

~~~
rootusrootus
Exceptions proving the rule? It gets a lot more love than hate.

~~~
slenk
You're probably right. People tend to post more negative than positive
anyways.

------
jacquesm
The dent the reputation of Boeing got after this is nothing compared to the
drop in reputation of the FAA.

~~~
user5994461
Agreed on this. It's the FAA that's taking the fall and the US with it.

------
munk-a
People need to be jailed over this, start at the top and work your way down.

------
DumbUser123
As they should - but hopefully they fast-track their design review and make it
transparent to everyone.

------
mtgx
What the FAA should have done, too.

------
rajacombinator
Jail time for execs is the only solution that matters.

------
skookumchuck
Europe has an interest in promoting their state-sponsored airplane
manufacturer, Airbus.

------
ShinTakuya
I mean while I'm all for continuing to punish Boeing for their blatant
disregard for human lives, you could also say it's in the best interest of the
EU to attack Boeing in a way that doesn't seem hostile on a political level
since it indirectly benefits Airbus.

~~~
ernesth
It is perfectly clear that the US is at economical war against Europe.

However, Europe is not obviously at war against the US.

