
Boeing May Halt 737 Max Production - kderbe
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/business/boeing-earnings-737-max.html
======
the_duke
This is an incredibly weird article. It's basically a prolonged sob-story
about how terrible a production halt would be.

No doubt there would be an economic impact but the writing is just full of
hyperbole and doesn't name any sources for it's claims (like 0.6% of GDP
growth rate - note the _growth rate_ , not 0.6% of GDP or 0.6% of GDP growth
...). It also fails to differentiate between the impact of existing planes not
able to fly and continued production.

This smells like a PR campaign to put pressure on regulators.

Only, in this instance, the FAA probably won't risk further embarrassment by
declaring the plane safe while EASA is holding out. Most of the world will
wait for them rather than go with the FAA.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
There seems to be a lack of objectivity in the article. Is a reduction of 0.6%
of the growth rate (which, again, is 0.6% of probably a percentage like 2% of
3%-- a very small percentage indeed) a small price for the safety of air
travel? There's zero discussion of the downsides of letting these planes fly.
Or, stated in other words, are we willing to accept a third plane's worth of
casualties over an already known systemic error, for a miniscule improvement
to the growth rate? This strong-arming is not what Boeing needs right now.

~~~
Dylan16807
> a small price for the safety of air travel?

You're taking it way too far in the other direction. It's not whether we have
safety or not, it's a matter of some very close to 100% number vs. a different
very close to 100% number. (And at this point it's more likely the same future
safety level but different amounts of training.)

------
allengeorge
My (conspiratorial) take is that they’re making noises about this so that
politicians can step in and pressure the FAA into approving their
modifications. Talking about blue-collar job losses and economic impacts has
the amazing effect of cutting through politicians’ radar on both sides of the
aisle.

~~~
std_throwaway
If you think they could pressure the FAA, do you also think they could
pressure the EASA and CAAC?

~~~
PaulHoule
They could, but not as easily. On the other hand, the FAA will look very bad
if the EASA and CAAC don't agree with them.

This is what I think is going on:

Part of the 737MAX fundamentally is that 737 NG pilots did not need retraining
to fly it.

That's a nice goal, but it is not compatible with MCAS. With MCAS in the
picture, pilots need to fly out two situations in a simulator: (1) MCAS goes
bezerk and they have to manually disable it, and (2) they get into the kind of
trouble that MCAS is supposed to stop and then MCAS doesn't stop it.

I think Boeing is hoping they can do a software fix but not add a training
requirement and I think that's a major reason why the fix is taking so long. I
can't believe that regulators will clear the MAX to fly again without the
training requirement. If Boeing is trying to avoid simulator training, they
are doing a lot of harm to themselves, their shareholders, their employees,
airlines, their suppliers, the U.S. Economy, etc. If they bite the bullet and
accept the simulator requirement they can probably get back in the air soon --
they might have to pay for the simulator training that they promised airlines
wouldn't have to pay for, but that's probably less than what they are going to
pay because of delays.

Another problem with their foot dragging is that delays beget more delays. The
more time they waste, the more new problems will be discovered, the more it
will cascade. The fast way out is the way through, but from the beginning to
this moment, Boeing has not appeared to recognize the gravity of this
situation.

~~~
darkpuma
Could it be the case that Boeing is behaving obstinately as a negotiation
tactic, perhaps to negotiate more favorable terms concerning who pays for the
re-training? Maybe they recognize that retraining will be necessary, but fear
if they admit it they'll have no leg to stand on when airlines demand Boeing
pays for it. Or maybe they realize retraining to some degree is an
inevitability but they're trying to minimize the breadth of that retraining?

------
illirik
There is also an issue with the 777X engines, as reported by the Seattle
Times. This could cause a lot of pain for a lot of people in Renton and
Everett. [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/boein...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/boeing-says-737-max-crisis-could-temporarily-shut-down-renton-
production/)

~~~
blackflame7000
From my understanding, the issue with the GE-9x is a durability problem with a
component in the compressor that GE itself is manufacturing. It's not good
news but it shouldn't be a showstopper.

~~~
hodgesrm
Here's the best link I could find on the problem:
[https://thepointsguy.com/news/boeings-777x-delays-engine-
iss...](https://thepointsguy.com/news/boeings-777x-delays-engine-issues/).

High-bypass turbofans are finicky things. It seems likely there will be more
teething problems in that area. The GE-9x increases the bypass ratio by 11%
from 9 to 10 over the GE-90 based on comparison of specs published in
wikipedia. [1,2]

So the interesting question for launch is what else pops up.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE9X](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE9X)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90#Specific...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90#Specifications)

~~~
blackflame7000
If you are interested in turbine engines, I highly recommend this guy's
youtube channel as he will teach you everything you ever wanted to know and
more about how turbines work. This video is about the compressor and it's
actually a very simple component. Pretty much the only thing that can go wrong
is that metal fatigue starts to form where the fan blades meet the hub. I
suspect that the size of the compressor is resulting in larger centrifugal
forces causing fatigue to occur quicker.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSi4GXUojo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSi4GXUojo)

------
annachronistic
I can’t be the only one who’s more surprised that they’ve been making new ones
this whole time.

~~~
std_throwaway
They have a lot of orders to fulfill.

~~~
cmurf
Over 4400 units, 80% of their total backlog, representing 7 years of
production value at the present production capacity.

~~~
blendo
Thanks for adding this -- I can see the total economic impact of this could be
huge.

Until April, they were producing 52 planes per month. Then they reduced to
42/mo. Now maybe zero for some while. At $100 million per plane, that's
$5.2bil/mo!

And over $400 billion in 7 years. Can their defense business cover that? Can
the employee 401k's survive?

------
downrightmike
Probably just trying some way to justify the plane, until they can't. The way
they slapped the bigger engines onto the old design should not continue.
Neither should their complete outsourcing of plane production. Quality counts
and they're missing it.

------
Theodores
What if it costs too much to fix?

Anything can be made to fly if you spend enough money on it. But Boeing are in
the business of making money. So they can't just get the 737 Max to fly at all
costs. Even if they went all out the reputational harm is very much
deHavilland Comet. They fixed the Comet and it was a lovely plane, but nobody
wanted it. With the 737 it needs a full redesign, otherwise it is just an
exercise in polishing a turd. Even if the MCAS works perfectly it is still an
ugly hack.

To Boeing the decision to be selling single aisle short-hop planes might be
something they get completely out of. They can finish orders for 737 oeo (old
engine option) and just shut the whole thing down.

After 2008 the US auto sector was pared down a bit, GM getting rid of Pontiac
to shutter it for good was needed to solve the bigger GM venture, similarly
737 MAX might be best closed in order to save the company. Much like how quick
they were with the Dreamliner, in 5-10 years time Boeing could be back with
another Ryanair grade offering.

Ford, GM and FCA decided to give up on making saloons for the domestic market,
they let the Germans fill that niche. Similarly, with the 737 it might be
better to be realistic about the competition, not just from Airbus but China,
Russia and anywhere else. If China has a good plane to rival the 737 in 2-3
years time then it would be hard for Boeing's unionised workers to compete
with their robots.

~~~
selimthegrim
Which Germans? VW and Audi? Sedan numbers have gotten that low?

------
mjevans
Maybe if we want safety first we should be engineering lead, and only have
sales/customer desires as inputs that are considered when creating a design
that fulfills market needs.

That includes all stages of engineering knowing the big picture, even if they
don't happen to be acting upon it, so that there are safety checks possible at
every stage of design and implementation.

~~~
maltalex
Safety is never actually first. First, you need an economically viable
product. Otherwise, there is no reason for it or any if the processes behind
it to exist.

~~~
PaulHoule
Yes, but the airline industry has been doing a great job for the most part on
both safety and economics.

The A320 costs about what the 737 costs and it has a flight envelope
protection system with much better safety. It's had problems in the past that
Airbus has learned from and that Boeing has applied to their newer airliners,
but that Boeing got amnesia for when it came to the legacy 737.

(The A320 fly-by-wire also improves fuel efficiency, lowers maintenance costs,
rides out turbulence to improve comfort, etc.)

Also the lack of safety has not saved anybody any money. I think now Boeing is
saying they've lost $8 billion because of the MAX problems, and if they took
that plus what they spent to make the MAX they could have been a clean sheet
replacement for the 737.

People are so used to the 737 that they don't realize what a backwards
airplane it is. Every other airliner from every manufacturer makes some claim
that it is comfortable on their official web page. The 737 doesn't because it
is the least comfortable airliner (and thus is the baseline everything is
compared to.) The 737 is loud for passengers, pilots, and people on the
ground. The A220 and E190 are smaller planes that are much more comfortable
because they are designed around the human body as opposed to 1960's
aeronautics. Compared to a clean sheet design, the 737 wastes fuel, causes
excess global warming, has a higher seat-mile cost, and it makes everybody
miserable while doing so.

The 737 is what secular stagnation looks like.

~~~
tastygreenapple
You're missing some important details.

The A320 and 737 have similar sticker prices, but it's not clear if one is
cheaper to buy than the other because the prices paid for planes tend to be
around half of the sticker price but the real prices aren't public.

The A320 is around 10k lbs heavier than the 737 and the A320 series burns more
fuel per passenger mile
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft)).
The A321 NEO is nearer the efficiency of the Boeing 737-900 than than the 737
MAX 10.

The passenger comfort of the 'human focused' designs often comes at the cost
of fuel efficiency.

You're right that the 737 is loud and an old design. I don't dispute that
Boeing messed up their one job (making safe planes) but to call the 737
secular stagnation when the newest version is nearly three times as efficient
(in terms of fuel burned to move a passenger one miles) as the original 737
misunderstands "stagnation".

~~~
PaulHoule
Up to a point the 737 got better, but the same things that made it get better
(longer range) made it get worse (worse comfort)

An engineering prof I worked with years ago said that the 737 NG was already
long in the tooth

[https://www.newsweek.com/boeings-737-airplane-prone-
problems...](https://www.newsweek.com/boeings-737-airplane-prone-
problems-63629)

and has a great quote from Tony: "Boeing are (sic.) stuck with a design that
they want to fly forever."

~~~
tastygreenapple
The second gen 737 was long in the tooth. IIRC, the 737 NG has a much better
wing than it needs because its landing gear is so short that the plane can't
get the right angle of attack on the airfoil during rotation.

It's kind of deliciously ironic that Boeing's attempts to cut corners are
going to cost them more than a clean sheet redesign, but I really wonder
what's going to replace the 737.

We're at the point where we're doing inappropriate things with single aisle
aircraft - it's just not great that we're about to have 9 hour flights on
A321XLRs. It seems like there's a natural limit of 140-160 passengers on
single aisle aircraft but and hubris has us cramming 220 people in them.

Hopefully someone figures out composites enough to create lifting wide bodies
but we'll see.

------
jaclaz
I personally find odd the wording:

>... if the grounding of its most popular plane persists ...

as if the grounding was an uncontrollable event, like - say - weather.

I would have written it as:

"if we (Boeing) cannot soon find a solution that is considered safe enough by
the relevant Authorities ..."

------
outside1234
At the very least they are going to have to rebrand it - 737 Ultimate Edition
perhaps? :)

~~~
idrae
Apparently they are already selling them to RyanAir under the name 737-8200 to
get rid of the MAX naming

------
cmurf
Anyone old enough to second guess that McDonnell Douglas and Boeing merger?
And 30 years before that, the McDonnell and Douglas merger? Are these really
natural monopolies?

------
shdh
Rebranding to a different name would be a simple solution.

------
auvi
sometimes I wonder, will Boeing end up like de Havilland? too early to say
now.

------
tracer4201
Too big to fail. Not sure if America learned any lessons the last time.

------
ohazi
Good!

------
DuskStar
I really, really hope this isn't necessary. We're currently in one of the
longest (if not _the_ longest) periods of continued economic growth in US
history, and the knock-on effects from a halt to 737 production could help put
an end to that. (not just from the direct hit which was estimated at of 0.6%
of GDP, but the confidence hit that would cause)

EDIT: To be clear, I think the best outcome is for the 737 Max to be made safe
and to fly again. If it can't be made safe, obviously cancelling production of
useless planes is a good idea.

~~~
dhbanes
If the plane isn't safe and can't be made safe then it's necessary. Also, the
claim that Boeing halting 737 Max production will cause a recession seems like
FUD to me.

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
> Boeing halting 737 Max production will cause a recession

Oh shit, let's bail them out!

~~~
seltzered_
This has been recently discussed: [https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-
coming-boeing-bailout](https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-coming-boeing-
bailout)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353342](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353342)

