
Boeing to Suspend 737 Max Production in January - JumpCrisscross
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-suspend-737-max-production-in-january-11576532032
======
ryanisnan
I'm surprised that the market hasn't reacted more negatively towards Boeing
regarding the Max 8 disaster.

Airlines operate on razor-thin margins (~1 to 2%), and several users of the
Max 8 have had significant portions of their fleet out of service as a result.

Westjet [1], for example runs 124 planes currently. 13 of which are the Max 8.
Over 10% of their fleet. Southwest Airlines [2], for example, runs 748 planes,
34 of which are Max 8s (with an additional 246 ordered), ~4.5% of the fleet.

The lawsuits that are surely incoming are going to pile-drive this company
into the ground.

edit: [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WestJet#Current_fleet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WestJet#Current_fleet)
edit 2: [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Curre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Current_fleet)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _lawsuits that are surely incoming are going to pile-drive this company into
> the ground_

Legally, everyone is indemnified up the wazoo.

Strategically, airlines are in a _worse_ position if Boeing goes under. Not
only do they lose the planes on order. They also lose their service and
replacement-parts provider. The survivors would, in the medium-term, face an
Airbus monopoly and, in the long-term, a Chinese-European duopoly.

As emotionally-satisfying as it may be to see Boeing go under for its
arrogance, it's neither helpful nor likely. (A well-managed break-up, on the
other hand...)

~~~
Despegar
>Strategically, airlines are in a worse position if Boeing goes under. Not
only do they lose the planes on order. They also lose their service and
replacement-parts provider. The survivors would, in the medium-term, face an
Airbus monopoly and, in the long-term, a Chinese-European duopoly.

Boeing "going under" just means that shareholders will get wiped out, not that
they cease operations.

~~~
hackerbabz
I wonder if Lockheed Martin would get back into passenger jets.

Or Bombardier leads a Canadian aerospace resurgence.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Bombardier is part of Airbus now.

~~~
nate_meurer
No they aren't; airbus has a stake in one of Bombardier's aircraft lines,
that's all.

------
bitxbit
Lost in all of this discussion is the fact that Boeing problems began with
South Carolina. The fact that politics played a big role in opening that plant
should not be ignored. MAX wasn’t just designed poorly, the organization
process within Boeing was already failing. It’s a corporate culture failure.

~~~
hinkley
South Carolina and the 787 assembly process both looked like pretty poorly
concealed union busting tactics to me.

First you made a plane that doesn't require the massive gantry cranes to
construct. Smaller portable equipment does a lot of the work. You can build
new, cheaper facilities. Then you move things more or less to the opposite
corner of the country, but closer to the new headquarters.

Yeah, not suspicious at all.

~~~
thehappypm
Any chance you could elaborate on this? I am not following this comment
thread, not able to read between the lines.

~~~
sho_hn
I remember reading South Carolina has among the lowest union representation
among relevant workers.

------
jamiek88
A lot of people thought this couldn’t happen.

Difficult to overstate the enormity of this to the industry.

~~~
kayfox
Would the last person leaving Seattle please turn out the lights.

~~~
filmgirlcw
Renton sobs.

~~~
canadaj
Is this good or bad for my house-buying efforts?

~~~
Aloha
Neither. Closing the plants in Renton and Kent might move the needle.

------
mark-r
The big question is why they haven't done it already? Boeing's disconnect from
reality is painful to watch.

~~~
ChuckMcM
It is a question, but the answer is probably pretty mundane.

An airplane is a tremendously complex machine, and building them is a well
honed process with lots of checks and balances built in which protect the
investment the company is making in building such a complex device.

So no doubt there are many many root cause analysis meetings which are going
on to root out the failures in the process that let the plane get to this
point.

But historically, the company has made modifications to the 737 airframe to
provide new models and those changes have gone well. Certainly in the sense
that they produced a viable airplane that was safe to fly.

I would speculate that due to the history of the 737 airframe, and the track
record of creating new variants that are safe, and the challenge of stopping
the manufacturing line for such a plane which literally has thousands of
suppliers making parts on a schedule that has years of deliveries in it, it
took this long to get through the various options that would _not_ require
stopping the production of the plane. Stopping production is literally the
second worse scenario[1] for Boeing.

[1] The worst is scrapping all existing planes.

~~~
kayfox
I fully expect this was put out there to put this ball (tens of thousands of
jobs lost) in the FAA's court. I also fully expect Boeing to halt production
if the FAA processes drag out longer, its not economical to continue making
aircraft and not delivering them, in that if they don't deliver them, they
don't get paid.

There's a point where its no longer due diligence, but decision paralysis. I
don't know if were anywhere near that point with the 737 MAX, but at some
point we will be, and we shouldn't ever get there.

The problem is that this will hurt tons of small businesses and suppliers more
than it will hurt Boeing. It will hurt the machinists who assemble the
aircraft, the network of suppliers in the Seattle area. But for the suits in
Chicago it will be a metrics miss and maybe less of a bonus.

~~~
salawat
As unfortunate as that is, due to overconsolidation, this is pretty much a
foregone conclusion.

If Boeing were just one in a field of aircraft manufacturers, this wouldn't be
half as catastrophic, since that whole supply chain would have everyone else
to supply.

But that isn't the case anymore, and it is about time overconsolidation bit
something in the arse.

------
Medicalidiot
I'm really wondering how much this will impact Boeing in the future and what
their plans are for the 737 Max replacement.

~~~
salex89
It probably impacted already. The Boeing NMA is basically nowhere to be seen,
the 777X deadlines are slowly being broken, and that should be the future of
Boeing. For now, Boeing is dealing with the past, basically, corpses falling
out of the closet. Not to mention the 787 engine issues.

~~~
kn0where
It increasingly seems like NMA won’t happen before a 737 replacement. 777X is
going to be under a lot of scrutiny post-MAX and I would not be shocked if
regulators find issues that Boeing overlooked before the plane is certified.
At least the 787 engine issues are Rolls Royce and not Boeing, and RR isn’t
the sole supplier of 787 engines.

~~~
salex89
True. Basically Airbus will have time to roll out their own purebred NMA
competitor by then, although they have the A321.

------
urda
It will be difficult for Boeing to walk back the public opinion of the 737 MAX
for what they have done.

I know plenty of airline customers who intend to never fly a segment that
utilizes one.

~~~
jlmorton
I sincerely doubt many people will remember anything about this five years
from now. There have been dozens of crashes involving various models of the
737 series, and the vast majority of the population could not name a single
incident.

As soon as this is out of the news cycle, everyone will forget.

~~~
calcifer
> dozens of crashes

That's wrong by an order of magnitude. 737 series had a total of 478
incidents, 213 of which is resulted in hull loss [1].

[1] [https://aviation-
safety.net/database/types/Boeing-737-series...](https://aviation-
safety.net/database/types/Boeing-737-series/index)

~~~
nrb
To be fair, the vast majority of those are not "crashes" in the sense that the
parent post describes.

------
ijidak
Flying already evokes an illogical visceral fear in most humans. (Listen to
the screams, and white knuckled grasps, during strong turbulence.)

The 737 Max is likely dead, forever, for passenger traffic.

There's just too much for every stakeholder, but Boeing, to lose.

Most likely Boeing will need state help (like the auto company bailout) while
it transitions to some new post-737-Max reality.

The 737 Max rise and fall will likely become a popular business school case
study.

(I could be wrong, but I just don't see this plane ever being palatable for
much of the flying public. The fear of flying is just to visceral, to simply
act like none of this ever happened.)

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I'm not sure the fear is illogical in a case when over 300 people have died
due to a known design fault, particularly when the manufacturer in question
tried to sweep it under the rug the first time it manifested itself.

I have no problem at all with flying and do it regularly (as recently as
yesterday, on a 737-800 no less) but I wouldn't set foot on a MAX, even if I
was assured that the fault was fixed.

~~~
kawfey
The fear is illogical because there is a 1 in 2,925,000 odds of dying on
commercial aircraft [0].

Before the MAX 8 was grounded, it had well over 2,000,000 hours of flight time
on 387 aircraft performing 8,600 flights/week for 56 airlines [1]. Two out of
800,000+ flights crashed due to MCAS taking input from a broken AoA sensor,
related to the poor maintenance of the airlines, and poor training by the
airline and possibly pilot error.

Imagine the level of detail of scrutiny the MAX 8 is currently undergoing.
I'll wager it'll have been the most scrutinized aircraft to have ever flown
once it's re-certified, if not the safest. Plus, everyone knows about MCAS now
so a crash due to it misbehaving in the case of a _double_ AoA vane failure is
incredibly unlikely now.

So I think the fear is still illogical.

[0] [https://www.economist.com/graphic-
detail/2013/02/14/danger-o...](https://www.economist.com/graphic-
detail/2013/02/14/danger-of-death)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX)

------
andyjohnson0
Heard on BBC Radio 4 news this morning: the cost of stopping production of the
737 Max is equal to 0.3% of US GDP.

------
dang
Related, though a bit earlier in the news cycle:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21799845](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21799845)

------
acqq
Non paywall version on cnbc.com:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/boeing-will-
suspend-737-max-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/boeing-will-
suspend-737-max-production-in-january.html)

Boeing's official statement:

[https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-12-16-Boeing-Statement-
Reg...](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-12-16-Boeing-Statement-
Regarding-737-MAX-Production)

The relevant part:

"Safely returning the 737 MAX to service is our top priority. We know that the
process of approving the 737 MAX's return to service, and of determining
appropriate training requirements, must be extraordinarily thorough and
robust" ...

"Throughout the grounding of the 737 MAX, Boeing has continued to build new
airplanes and there are now approximately 400 airplanes in storage."

"As a result of this ongoing evaluation, we have decided to ... temporarily
suspend production on the 737 program beginning next month.

We believe this decision is least disruptive to maintaining long-term
production system and supply chain health."

Note: temporarily. It's still just a pause button.

~~~
mark-r
Hitting the pause button doesn't mean the stop button suddenly disappeared.

------
metafizikal
why continue to make the planes when you have no idea when you can actually
push them out the door? given that they continued to produce the MAX while
they were grounded, they must be running out of storage space...

~~~
jonknee
Because they have a huge backlog of orders to fulfill when it does get re-
approved and it's very expensive to shut down and idle the production process
(besides Boeing themselves there are 100s of suppliers)?

------
manbearpiggy
Can't they just rebrand the 737 max? Sort out their dodgy internal processes
and add some new safety features. They've been repackaging old designs since
the 60's anyway.

Either that or they go all in on a new medium-range aircraft, the market is
already disrupted in Airbus' favour.

~~~
duelingjello
The MAX was a "bridge too far" for the 737 type. They need a clean-sheet
design with big engines and fuel-efficient wings to compete with the A320neo,
and the 737 can't be adapted to do that (wings too low to the ground) and it
has a bad reputation. They're better off developing the Future Small Airplane
(FSA), and call it a "797."

~~~
tropo
Boeing can build a fuel-efficient aircraft that is highly compatible with the
737 airport equipment. There are two obvious approaches.

The first approach is that taken by the Boeing 717. Do a T tail with rear
engines. Bombardier, Gulfstream, and Embraer commonly do this.

The second approach is that taken by the Boeing C-17. Mount the wings high.
Although usually done for turboprops and military cargo, passenger jets have
been done in this configuration. The British Aerospace 146 is an example.

There are many more unusual options as well.

------
TheBillyMania
Focus! Get MCAS squared away and get the plane back in the air. Reading some
of these comments here makes me glad that none of us are in charge at Boeing.
The comments are unbelievably naive or have huge gaps in business logic or
lack technical rigor.

------
supernova87a
I was imagining just to myself whether the jobs or economic impact of this
production suspension by Boeing would be similar or not even close to the
disruption caused by the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 fiasco.

In this case, the jobs are much higher value per person, and the supply chain
much more dramatic -- big factories and machinery idled. But the Samsung
battery disaster probably affected 10s of thousands of workers, and caused
Samsung a reported $15B (?) writedown of value.

But then thinking again, Boeing has experience with bad batteries too... Maybe
the two companies should share PR disaster recovery playbooks.

------
nemetroid
Regarding the comments about renaming the plane, it is humourous that the
first Boeing plane with a memorable name would turn out to be the plane whose
name you'd hugely prefer if people would forget.

------
msie
I am half-happy to see this happen to Boeing. I just only want the execs to
suffer for the Max and the tariffs against Bombardier. I don’t have any ill
will to the lower level employees.

------
sanguy
Max is done and will likely never fly again as designed.

The real question is will Boeing re-design it as doing so will be an admission
of guilt.

------
env123
Why don't they suspend right now immediately, why is it set on January? What
are they going to do with the previously produced, currently producing up to
31st of December, 2019? Are they going to blow them up on 2020 like fireworks
to celebrate New Year?

~~~
ddalex
production isn't just the plant itself - its not as simple as to send people
home

production is a huge machine of suppliers delivering parts on demand - e.g.
the chairs arrive exactly on the day that the chairs need to be mounted
inside, otherwise is much more expensive to store, shelf, un-shelf, etc...
expand thousands of times... and each supplier has its own suppliers, etc

also the tooling and all additional bits need to be correctly conserved, e.g.
you can't leave sensitive measuring and calibration equipment out unused

this huge mechanism has a huge inertia. having it stopped in 2 weeks is
amazing - but probably the supply chain was already working on how to stop the
machinery in a way that's possible to start it again in some months

------
thbr99
What prevents them from selling the same broken stuff under a new name like
Boeing 987 something and everyone will be cool with that ?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
What prevents them from selling the same broken stuff is the FAA and the
European authority doing their jobs.

They didn't before, you say? It appears that they did not. But they have shown
signs of waking up lately. It seems at least somewhat reasonable to hope that
they are no longer just a rubber stamp.

------
omegant
I bet they will stop building the 737 max and start building the 737”new model
that is the max with some changes that can be retrofitted”. Like a larger
stabilizer, longer frame, or maybe something easier. But something that lets
them say it’s a “new” model but keeps 99% of the production line untouched and
can be negotiated with the existing buyers. We’ll see how it works in some
weeks.

~~~
Aloha
Why?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Probably because the name is toxic.

But I don't think it will work, because it takes _time_ to engineer such a
modification, and more time to get FAA approval.

~~~
Aloha
The software fix is complete, and the name is already been replaced, its now
the 737-8200.

~~~
throwaheyy
That is not the new name for the MAX; it is still called the MAX and Boeing
has not publicized any new name for it yet.

The 8200 is a customized MAX variant for a single airline’s requirements,
Ryanair.

------
WalterBright
The FAA needs to stop hemming and hawing, being unclear about what they need,
put in some overtime and get things done.

~~~
the-pigeon
Ban the aircraft. Criminally charge everyone involved in suppressing it's
serious issues and forcing it through approval.

Figure out how their processes become vulnerable to corruption and attempt to
change them.

The problem is of course the FAA doesn't want to hurt Boeing or the industry
over this. But that strongly conflicts with their job.

The hope at this point seems to be to drag it out until people forget.

~~~
kayfox
Why, were talking about a fatal error in one small system on a huge and
complex aircraft which is 90% the same as the previous iteration of this
aircraft.

We can fix these things.

We should not be approaching engineering problems with emotional reactions to
crashes. The airline industry is so incredibly safe because each crash is
analyzed, the problems identified and solved. If two crashes mean we should
scrap it, does that mean we just stop flying because every major aircraft type
has had serious incidents.

No, we fix the problems and keep flying. You don't get better at something by
giving up the first time you make a mistake.

~~~
adrr
Someone did the stats around the max 8. 300 lives lost in 3 years of operation
and 400 planes in the sky. It is actually quite dangerous to fly and much more
dangerous than driving when you compare by travel time and not distance. In
comparison, A320 Neo and 787 have no hull losses and there's more of those
planes in the sky than the maxes. 787s have been flying for almost 10 years.

~~~
_ph_
Both losses were caused by the same faulty system, MCAS. I don't understand
how can one make predictions about the safety of the plane with a fixed MCAS
from the MCAS related crashes.

~~~
tachion
Because it's safer thing to do, when people lives are at risk. If it would be
having some milk spilled or popcorn burnt, no one would try to make those
overly precautious predictions. Also, because the plane has a bad track
record, so it brought the scrutiny on itself.

------
mrtksn
I was looking into API to make an app for avoiding this plane, then I thought
maybe I should not upset those who can kill hundreds of people and expect to
get away with it.

I am not a nervous flyer, I even used to do paragliding but I am pretty
determined to wait few years before flying on one of those. One thing I
learned about paragliding was that you must trust your equipment or don’t fly.

~~~
mrosett
Surely a 737 Max is orders of magnitude safer than a paraglider...

~~~
mrtksn
The performance and safety certification of the gliders seem more trustworthy
than FAA and Boeing at this point. Also it is expected to get trained for the
failure modes of the wing(unlike with the 737 max, apparently). Not a
dangerous sport if you don’t take risks and have proper equipment.

~~~
spookthesunset
You have to be kidding me. You are trying to assert that paragliding is safer
than flying on a 737 MAX? Seriously?

How is this even a reasonable, thought out argument to work against? I
downvoted you (and a lot of the other over-the-top reactionary nonsense from
armchair “aviation experts”) but I figured I’d at least explain why.

Why is it every discussion on this site that involves any large company full
of such over-the-top vilification? It’s so predictable and eye rollingly
childish....

~~~
mrtksn
Obviously 737MAX and paragliders cannot be compared directly but paragliders
don't come with an inherently dangerous design that is not disclosed to the
pilots. Gliders do have failure modes but that is O.K. because pilots are
trained to handle these. No surprises, therefore safer than 737 MAX with MCAS.

Hundreds of people died, Boeing repeatedly tried to deny the existence of the
problem, the responsibility and at the end, the CEO only lost his seat in the
board and nothing else. A deeper look unveiled multiple scandals about Boeing
and FAA and you are complaining that I am vilifying this company? You have to
be kidding me.

Why is it every discussion on this site that involves any technology that is a
nerds childhood dream needs to be whitewashed? It’s so predictable and eye
rollingly childish

~~~
spookthesunset
Doesn’t need to be whitewashed but doesn’t need a bunch of hyperbole painting
every giant Corp as the most evil villain ever. Nobody anywhere can do any
right on this website. Very tiring.

Like, does anybody here understand the engineering and business trade offs in
airplane design? I doubt it. Just a bunch of dunning Kruger affected people
who think knowing to program equates to expertise in every other field.

~~~
mrtksn
>Nobody anywhere can do any right on this website. Very tiring.

You are being unreasonable here.

I see you have an emotional investment in this but let's not pretend that this
is a witchhunt. HN is a very positive community that supports good work and
attempts, but in this case, we are literally talking about a company that did
very bad job by producing a craft unfit for use by humans that cost the lives
of hundreds. How positive and supporting you are expecting me to be to the
work of a giant corporation that cost so much and tried to defer blame? If
anything, scrutiny is what would keep the repetition of this. This is not a
mom and pop store that made a mistake and asking for forgiveness, it is a
giant malfunctioning structure that created big trouble and is resisting to
change.

------
Spacemolte
So they have decided that it's cheaper to scrap that particular model than fix
the issues, likely more reputation than technical.

~~~
kayfox
They are suspending production until the grounding is lifted.

Not killing off the product.

They will of course not be paying the tens of thousands of workers that work
on that product while production is suspended.

~~~
whyaduck
No layoffs according to CNBC: [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/boeing-will-
suspend-737-max-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/boeing-will-
suspend-737-max-production-in-january.html)

~~~
kayfox
No layoffs at Boeing because of IAM, but you can bet when Boeing stops placing
orders from their supplier network, people are going to be laid off.

------
cletus
So if you happen to hold any stock in any budget airlines (Southwest, Ryanair,
that sort of thing) I would seriously consider dumping it now.

If the Max doesn't return to service or even if its grounding is prolonged
this represents an existential threat to the likes of Southwest as part of the
way they maintain their low margins is by having a fleet with one and only one
type rating.

Other airlines (eg American) that bet on the Max (instead of, say, the
A320neo) may suffer in the short to medium term too but at least they're
better equipped to deal with this as they already deal with having a
heterogeneous fleet.

Personally I never wanted to fly on the Max even before the crashes because
(at least on American) they're even more cramped the the A321s and older 737s
and 767s. I mean, who want that to shave off a few dollars? It's already
uncomfortable enough. After the crashes? Why would I?

The leadership of Boeing needs to be ousted and, honestly, the DoJ should see
if there was any criminal wrongdoing here as the response from Boeing (ie
trying to blame the pilots and refusing to ground the plane) was abysmal. The
fish rots from the head and if CEO pay is justified by the results they get (
_cough_ ) then they're also responsible when it goes horribly wrong, which it
did.

The big winner here is Airbus.

And yes, I fully expect Boeing to attempt to rebrand and salvage the Max.
Personally, I hope it never flies again.

EDIT: removed EasyJet as they operate an Airbus not 737 fleet. Southwest and
Ryanair however fly only 737 variants.

~~~
clintonb
> If the Max doesn't return to service or even if its grounding is prolonged
> this represents an existential threat to the likes of Southwest as part of
> the way they maintain their low margins is by having a fleet with one and
> only one type rating.

The 737 MAX has the same rating as every 737 that Southwest and others fly.
Part of the MCAS controversy stems from the fact that Boeing did not discuss
it to avoid needing a new type rating. See
[https://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2019/03/accident-
investig...](https://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2019/03/accident-
investigation-1/the-boeing-737-max-8-controversy-explained/) for more
information.

~~~
tyingq
They are saying that if the MAX isn't available, Southwest will have to
consider buying a completely different aircraft.

~~~
clintonb
Yeah...they can buy other 737 variants. The MAX may be one of the most fuel-
efficient 737s on the market, but the 737NG line is still in production.

~~~
kn0where
They are not going to buy more NGs. The NG is technically still in production
but production has wound down significantly. All orders for airlines have been
built, and all that remains are orders for the military version and various
private customers. It would probably cost somewhat more for Southwest to order
NGs now than it did during the production heyday where economies of scale made
the plane cheaper to produce.

Buying brand-new, less-efficient 737NG planes when competing airlines
gradually have more and more A320neos could allow Southwest to keep growing,
but might not be a great long term investment. Southwest can keep flying their
existing NG fleet for a very long time, however, so they can (and have to)
wait for new planes.

Southwest isn’t forced to stay with the 737. It’s all about costs. Buying new
NGs probably would cost more in the long run than (years from now when the
backlong is reduced) starting to operate the A320neo, but far cheaper than
either is if the MAX returns to service and they get hefty compensation from
Boeing.

~~~
tyingq
The A220-300 could also be a reasonable choice.

------
srndh
Oh!! The tragedy...737 Max was the preferred choice for people too scared to
commit suicide & people who liked to live on the edge. Every time it took-off,
there was no certainty that it will land back safely. It was a technical
marvel that Airbus could not even dream of and the Chinese spys are working
tirelessly to steal the its design. This is an injustice.

