
Boeing Weighs Cutting or Halting 737 Max Production - xoa
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-weighs-cutting-or-halting-737-max-production-11576448990
======
freehunter
Just an anecdote, but I'm a traveling consultant for a pretty big tech
company, and the manager of the consulting group told us when the 737 Max
issue started (but before it was grounded) that we did not have to fly on that
plane and if we were put on that plane we could change flights and bill the
change fee back to the company without any complaints.

There's been no further guidance so far on what we'll do when the 737 Max is
back in service, but the message was clear: the safety and comfort of the
employee is worth a $200 change fee, compared to being forced onto a plane
that the employee feels is unsafe. I've never heard that mentioned for any
other plane. As much as air travel has sucked this summer with cancelations
and delays caused by the grounding of this plane, I don't foresee that model
having much luck if/when it's put into full service.

~~~
pcurve
There have been plenty of design flaws in commercial jetliners and in most
cases, reputation is recovered. But there hasn't been design flaw quite like
this one.

but none quite like this one.

~~~
nexuist
Like a lot of tragedies, it's really hard to tell how much the side effects of
something like this are attributed to the mistake itself and how much can be
explained through modern communication networks (social media) amplifying
everything.

Is the Boeing mistake _really_ that bad, or is it because this is the first
such aviation design mistake to happen in our post-2010 everyone-is-online
world? Remember that the tails on 737s used to just...fall off back in the
'90s.

For the record, I don't think the 737 MAX should have ever been cleared to fly
with the current version of MCAS. But I can't help but believe that there had
to be some boneheaded designs in the past that cost hundreds of lives that we
just don't think about today.

In any case, I hope Boeing has learned from this and revised its engineering
processes to go back to its previous prestigious roots. I also hope against
hope that we will finally see some executives go to prison for approving this.

~~~
rootusrootus
The 737NG problems in the 90s were rudders deflecting suddenly and
irrecoverably, tails did not fall off. Two crashes and a number of incidents
before the problem was identified. Boeing also tried to squash that
investigation, they actually swiped the servo from the first crashed plane so
it could not be properly analyzed.

Then the 737NG went on to have the best safety record of any plane ever. So
while the MAX problem is pretty bad, and social media vastly complicates the
PR angle, there is precedent for recovering from this. Certainly with as many
MAXs as have been built there is enormous incentive to get it fixed. It's not
realistic to expect them to scrap the planes.

~~~
lrem
Scrapping will not happen, yes. But I have a feeling the max might become the
first southern hemisphere exclusive.

------
jdjdjjsjs
I think what was ridiculously through this entire process was Boeing blaming
someone else. That's pretty much been the issue right from when it surfaced.
Initially it was the bad pilots, bad airlines, bad countries and lately it's
been the bad software consultants.

However, it's been evident from the beginning this is a fundamental design
flaw that Boeing was trying to, inappropriately, use software to make work.
Something no software would be capable of doing because software could not
make up for the lack of necessary information in the case of certain sensors
failing.

~~~
ulfw
Certain sensors? Plural? They only checked ONE single sensor (which is a
glitchy one at best) because their software infra didn’t support multiple
checks. There should be three AoA sensors to check to see if one is faulty in
flight (of course the grand old 737 only HAS two, so that’s yet another
issue).

Instead they checked just one and come what may sent the plane to hell based
on that one sensor read-out.

~~~
ghshephard
You only need two sensors to determine if one is faulty. You need three if you
need the correct measurement. For this application, all that is required is a
warning that the AoA sensors aren’t providing correct information.

~~~
mantap
That's true but it puts the aircraft at a greater risk of stalling, because
MCAS is supposed to be a safety feature to prevent stalls.

Two sensors are sufficient to prevent false positives, but three or more are
necessary to mitigate false negatives.

If the MAX is really so easy to stall that it needs a computer system to
prevent stalls, then that system should be robust enough to survive a sensor
out.

~~~
missosoup
There is no risk of stalling.

There was never any risk of stalling.

MCAS was added solely so that the 737 MAX 8 could share a type rating with the
previous members of the 737 family. This is what allowed Airlines to put
pilots on this plane without any significant new training.

Please stop perpetuating urban myths.

Here, listen to a guy who actually know what he's talking about describing the
overall situation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btZXVPfh-
pE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btZXVPfh-pE)

~~~
mantap
I don't think I'm perpetuating an urban myth. My understanding is that MCAS
was necessary to correct a deficiency in the controls - that's the controls
violated an FAA rule that the pitch up should not be superlinear relative to
the control input (which clearly increases the risk of stall). And indeed
after testing they had to increase the strength of MCAS because the tendency
to pitch up was worse than previously anticipated.

The desire for a common type rating is an explanation for _why_ the FAA rule
was violated without MCAS.

~~~
missosoup
This is incorrect. And this has been dispelled by multiple commercial pilots
including Juan from the link above who is one of the most experienced pilots
in the country.

The origin of this noise is sensationalist news coverage and misinterpretation
of FAA rules. I expect a higher standard on HN than perpetuating myths. You
guys are like the flat earthers of aviation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System#Certification_inquiry_on_737_MAX)

As Juan points out in either that or another video, the 767 has a stronger
pitch-up characteristic and yet doesn't have MCAS and doesn't fall out of the
sky from stalls.

Another myth and piece of sensationalist news bullshit is that Boeing made a
safety feature that would have prevented the accidents optional. The safety
feature in question was AOE Disagree Indicator. The reason it was optional is
because AOA doesn't mean anything to civilian pilots and the option only made
sense for airlines who hire ex-militaray pilots who can actually read the AOA
indicator and make sense of it.

~~~
piva00
So the whole point of MCAS is to basically create an emulated flight envelope
more similar to how previous generations 737s flew just to avoid a type rating
re-certification?

People died because Boeing was playing with emulators in real life?

~~~
missosoup
The shared type rating was a huge draw for airlines. Without it, the 737 MAX 8
would not have been nearly as popular in orders as it was.

Boeing got very greedy and multiple failures have occurred along the way. MCAS
on passenger planes is not unheard of, and has been implemented for various
reasons before including shared type ratings. It was just never botched across
the board this badly before.

The biggest failure as parent comment correctly notes, is MCAS was given
significantly more control authority than originally planned after flight
testing showed it was ineffective as per the original design. But this change
in control authority didn't trigger a review process which would have
reclassified it from non-critical to critical system.

------
the_duke
Boeing PR has been pushing these "oh no Boeing will have to halt production",
with supposedly dire consequences for the whole US economy, for months. I have
seen them at least 3 times now.

This is just another effort to pressure politicians and regulators to get the
Max back in service.

It also shows yet again the sad state of media. This almost reads as a Boeing
press release, lacking any reflection or substantial commentary.

~~~
liudoutang
I have the same feeling. as we know, Boeing is the one of the two biggest
plane maker, and there is no hardware issue 737 Max, just a software issue.
anyway, the politicians have to show a pose that they are careful about the
monitor process than before.

~~~
goatinaboat
What do you mean by “no hardware issue”? The root cause is that the hardware
is not a 737 but is pretending to be one!

~~~
behringer
Hardware can't pretend to be other hardware...

------
ulfw
To protect their long-term reputation they should consider cutting the
programme, taking the multi billion dollar loss and start anew with a
narrowbody range that is actually from the 2000s not warmed up 1960s.

But that would ‘never fly’. So we will get a software-upgraded, mandatory
“training” aircraft where pilots will have to be on full-alert every second of
the flight, it will somewhere crash again and pilots faulted for being
“trained but not paying enough attention” and there’s that.

~~~
metalliqaz
You're right, it would never fly, but probably not for the reason you think. A
company like Boeing is good at writing off large losses, after all. However
the problem is the customers. By the time they design and build an entirely
new narrow body plane, the customers would have long since modernized their
fleets with planes bought from other manufacturers like Airbus.

------
forgingahead
_Any MAX production changes could carry significant implications for the U.S.
economy. Boeing’s inability to deliver the aircraft during the prolonged
grounding has already weighed on the nation’s trade deficit._

The quoted statement is highly speculative, but it's a good indication of why
supposedly reputable news outlets and others in positions of societal
authority seem to be hand-waving away the seriousness of the entire issue.

Planes have _fallen out of the sky_ , and civilians were killed. These planes
should never fly again, regardless of whatever random macro-economy professor
says.

~~~
chii
"What's a few lives when there's billions of profits at stake?"

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That and a bunch of jobs. The Seattle area isn’t as exposed to Boeing cut
backs as it used to be, but I guess it would still be felt.

Of course, they would have to replace this with something, either previous
specced 737s, a new spec 737, or a new plane. While they are developing that
market share will fly to Europe and possibly China.

------
lapsley
As a consumer, there are a lot of things a company can fail at and still get
me to give them another try by saying, "We fixed it, you totally won't get
burned this time." Chipotle and salmonella outbreaks being one example.

It's a much harder sell when the product in question is an aircraft. If
Chipotle is wrong, I get food poisoning. If Boeing is wrong, I get to learn
what it feels like to be in a plane falling out of the sky.

Killing off the 737 Max seems awfully expensive.

For a more traditional business, I would guess that the failed product would
be fixed, renamed, and then released as something brand new. I'm not sure if
that's possible in the aerospace industry, but I'm curious to see what Boeing
does here.

~~~
foobar_fighter
On the other hand, food poisoning kills many more people than plane accidents.
Despite that, I have heard a lot more from the media about fatalities from
plane accidents than from food poisoning. And I suppose that's simply because
fear sells.

~~~
rossdavidh
If you get food poisoning, your chance of living is still pretty good. If your
plane crashes, you might live, but your odds are much worse than if you get
food poisoning.

Many more people eat meals each day, than fly in a plane.

~~~
rootusrootus
Your odds of surviving a plane crash are also quite good, though I agree it's
much more likely to kill you than food poisioning.

~~~
BigJono
Are they? I'd be interested to see some stats.

What kind of plane crashes are there where you have a good chance of
surviving? I'd have guessed the only ones where everyone survives are where
they run off the runway at half speed and bump around a bit on an empty field
of grass.

Surely if something happens in mid air and you're not able to make it back to
a runway and actually land the plane your odds would be complete shite (<5%?)

~~~
foldr
Some old but still relevant stats:
[https://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_oct01.pdf](https://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_oct01.pdf)

"From 1983 through 2000, NTSB investigated 26 accidents involving fire,
serious injury and either substantial aircraft damage or aircraft destruction.
There were 2,739 occupants involved in these serious accidents; 1,524 (55.6
percent) of the occupants survived the accident, 716 (26.1 percent) of the
occupants died from impact, 340 (12.4 percent) died from unknown causes, 12
131 (4.8 percent) died from fire/smoke, and 28 (1.0 percent) died from other
causes."

------
topspin
Hopefully this is this beginning of the end to the entire 737 family. The MAX
has revealed to me just how dated and obsolescent this aircraft is, in all its
forms. It persists because it allows airlines to shamble on without investing
in the changes necessary to adopt better designs. Perhaps they'll be forced to
do so as the MAX and possibly the rest of the 737 family finally get phased
out of first world passenger service, the latter if for no other reason as
they are not competitive in their non-MAX form.

The original 737 is a fine 60's design. It is long past time for the industry
to break out the capital crowbar and pry some funds from the industry tuches
to support some evolution. As the cost of that appears in ticket prices people
will have to think harder before obligating themselves to bounce around the
world. I care not.

~~~
jacquesm
Interestingly, the MAX _is_ a completely new aircraft. If Boeing had just
admitted that and certified it as such that would have had significant effect
on the required training and certification costs but it would have at least
recognized the truth. The 737MAX is much less of a 737 than the NG.

~~~
mhandley
The problem is it's not quite enough of a new aircraft. If they'd fitted
longer landing gear (along with all the changes that imples), they could have
put the new larger engines under the wing, where they should have been in the
first place, rather than stuck out in front of it, and then they wouldn't have
needed MCAS.

~~~
Tsiklon
I could imagine for many carriers the shorter landing gear is a feature of the
design; I believe some using this airframe choose to disembark passengers
direct to the tarmac using the system's ladders, rather than involve a flight
of stairs or an articulated gangway, lessening airport fees.

Edit: not to lessen any of the other points you made - this absolutely should
have gone through approval as a new model.

~~~
chawco
The design predates broad availability of jetways at airports. The concept, in
the 1960s, was that by being able to use stairs they'd be able to service many
smaller airports. By the 1970s this was clearly the wrong choice -- smaller
airports just installed jetways too. This was a design decision that didn't
even last the decade, but was brought forward for the next 50 years because
changes would mean a recertification. That is why the landing gear is short.
There are essentially no operators who make use of the low height of the
aircraft, and there hasn't been for longer than most of us have been alive.

~~~
jacquesm
I can't count the number of times that I've boarded 737's by stairways.

------
mscasts
I don't fly that often, but I know I'll keep track of whatever they call this
plane in the future to make sure I never board such a plane.

If a company would book a ticket for me at one of these I would rather get
fired or quit my job rather than board a MAX plane.

Never ever, am I going to travel with this model and I will be highly
suspicious for future models they produce.

------
ncmncm
There is nothing Boeing can do now to save the MAX short of firing the whole
executive suite and the board. The longer they stall, the worse for the
stockholders.

~~~
holler
To me, the first concrete step they could take to regain trust would be to
admit the mistake, scrap the max program including produced planes, and double
down on a totally redesigned successor.

~~~
AmVess
Admitting the mistake and scrapping the Max program would likely mean the end
of the company unless it got the mother of all bailouts from Uncle Sam.

~~~
BOOSTERHIDROGEN
could you explain how scrapping the max program could bankrupt entire company
?

~~~
michaelmrose
When I buy a chocolate bar for $1 and sell it for $1.10 I only gain 10c. If it
turns out its rotten and I can't get my money back I will lose the $1 not the
10c.

There are 393 delivered to customers at this time and another 300 produced.
The unit cost ranges from 100M to 130M. The cost of all units is aprox 80
billion dollars whereas their annual earnings are about 8 billion. They have
aprox 9 billion in cash and cash equivalents. Scrapping all maxes would
therefore require them to borrow 9-10 years worth of earnings. I predict they
find a way to kill more people before cratering and being bailed out on all
our dimes. We should just order them scrapped now and buy the pieces after the
company becomes insolvent and skip the dead people but if this happened now we
would probably end up with Jared Kushner running Boeing.

~~~
holler
> We should just order them scrapped now and buy the pieces after the company
> becomes insolvent and skip the dead people.

Maybe they made their own bed then... A major shake up would lead to
restructuring within the aerospace industry and new competitors would spring
up. The company would likely be majorly downsized but wouldn't go out of
existence. Taxpayers shouldn't be liable just because they made a catastrophic
miscalculation and built a fatally flawed aircraft.

------
bookofjoe
[http://archive.is/gb3vM](http://archive.is/gb3vM)

~~~
BurnGpuBurn
Thank you!

~~~
bookofjoe
You're most welcome. I try to do this for every HN story I'm interested in
that's behind a paywall: I figure if I want to read it in its entirety, there
must be other kindred spirits. Interestingly enough, sometimes my unblocked
links get downvoted. I file those under "No good deed goes unpunished."

------
trimbo
I imagine it will be safe in the future, but doomed because of PR.

Maybe they could help their PR if they made it actually comfortable to fly in.
I was avoiding it before the grounding because it sounds like a sardine can
they want to use for 5 hour flights like LAX-DCA.

[https://thepointsguy.com/news/cruel-and-unusual-aa-puts-
pann...](https://thepointsguy.com/news/cruel-and-unusual-aa-puts-
panned-737-max-on-some-of-its-longest-domestic-routes/)

~~~
0xffff2
Doesn't Boeing basically deliver an empty tube to the airline? Boeing isn't
picking the interior layout; the airline is.

------
ilaksh
They probably will have to Galt production.

But none of the executives are going to prison right? That's what should
actually happen. They deliberately and systematically short-changed the
engineering in order to make more money, to the point where hundreds of people
died.

------
neonate
[http://archive.md/gb3vM](http://archive.md/gb3vM)

------
TheBillyMania
Thankfully none of us on this forum are in charge at Boeing. We would
certainly do the wrong thing in response to the MCAS debacle. An observation
is that the overall environment is relatively healthy but we must never let
the MCAS incident be repeated. Identify why MCAS was so poorly coded and how
it passed QC and I think you’ve solved the most pressing issue.

------
chmaynard
It seems unlikely, at least to me, that Boeing will ever restart 737 Max
production. The decision by Boeing executives to bet the company on this
deeply flawed aircraft will have serious economic consequences for the
employees, suppliers, and investors who trusted them.

For the rest of us, no big deal. Airbus will happily take up the slack.

------
Havoc
They need to whine less and display some introspection instead.

Clearly Boeing has a company culture issue, not a 737 issue. Well both I
suppose.

------
KoftaBob
Boeing executives willingly and knowingly put a plane in the skies that they
knew pilots weren't properly trained to fly, and people died as a result.

There should 100% be a prison sentence for the decision makers that OK'd that
move. That's negligence to the highest degree.

------
ncmncm
Better than scrapping them all after they are built.

------
rco8786
At this point it’s about the negative name recognition more than anything.

------
jimbob45
Don't they already have deals in place? Unless they could fulfill those orders
with 737s at mightily discounted rates, I would think it would really be up to
the customers at this point.

------
leowoo91
Does anyone have a guess how much of a plane could be saved just by recycling?
Assuming they would bring it back to factory by air.

~~~
throwaheyy
That’s an interesting question. I wonder if they could be “re-specced” as NG
700/800/900 by re-engining them with NG engines and provably disabling MCAS?
Likely there would be big penalties to be paid to the airlines though.

------
Upvoter33
"Unsafe despite software patch" \- the modern day Corvair. I'll never fly on
one of these, and neither should you. Boeing needs to get their act
together...

~~~
TylerE
There was never really anything wrong with the Corvair.

~~~
andbberger
Are we thinking of the same plane? The one with the square windows that caused
stress fractures?

~~~
fallous
The Corvair was a GM automobile, made infamous by Ralph Nader's book "Unsafe
at Any Speed."

You're thinking of the de Havilland Comet (or possibly the aircraft
manufacturer Convair).

~~~
andbberger
Hah!! Not even close. Thanks.

~~~
masonic
Airworthiness of the Corvair was also suspect.

------
tus88
Build the 797 ASAP.

It's not rocket science.

(sorry)

