
Boeing loses big order for 737 Max aircraft - jfk13
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48899588
======
seanhunter
Probably the surprising thing is how _few_ orders they have lost. My
understanding is that this is because it is very very difficult for an airline
to change from Boeing/Airbus to Airbus/Boeing. They need to retool their whole
supply chain and retrain all their ground staff and pilots.

...but several airlines are talking about it. Notably American
[https://airlinerwatch.com/american-airlines-eyes-
airbus-a321...](https://airlinerwatch.com/american-airlines-eyes-
airbus-a321xlr-to-retire-its-boeing-757-200-fleet/) and United in the US
[https://airlinerwatch.com/united-airlines-considers-
airbus-a...](https://airlinerwatch.com/united-airlines-considers-
airbus-a321-xlr-for-replacement-of-its-aging-boeing-757s/) are both
considering replacing old Boeing planes with Airbus.

~~~
tyingq
If you look at the orders by customer[1], you will see quite a few that
exclusively or mostly fly 737's.

It would be costly for an airline to have to retrain almost all their pilots,
mechanics, etc on a new aircraft...and to purchase all the associated
supporting equipment.

And, the Max has significantly better fuel efficiency, seating capacity, etc
than other 737 models. Falling back to an earlier model isn't easy either.

They are banking on the general public forgetting about it over time. Which
has happened in the past.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries)

~~~
sametmax
> They are banking on the general public forgetting about it over time. Which
> has happened in the past.

Which almost always happen. Good strategy. Works for politicians, abusive
spouses, big companies. What incentive would they have to do otherwise since
society most often offers short outburst of rage, then focuses on something
else ?

~~~
WalterBright
What would be gained by destroying Boeing? And what would be lost?

~~~
rossdavidh
You don't need to destroy Boeing, but we do need to tell them to suck it up
and design a new plane. The sooner, the better.

~~~
WalterBright
There's nothing wrong with the 737MAX airframe. It's a software problem with
the MCAS system.

~~~
salawat
Unassisted non-compliance with FAR 25.173 begs to differ.

Keep in mind MCAS would not have existed to malfunction if the airframe was
capable of complying with existing regulations unaided.

This fact alone means that the airframe does have something wrong with it.

~~~
WalterBright
FAA regs require an active yaw damper, because all swept wing airliners would
be dangerously unstable without it.

There is no difference in principle here with the MCAS system.

~~~
rightbyte
Except that unstable pitch is more dangerous than yaw?

~~~
WalterBright
Yaw instability has resulted in fatal crashes.

------
spectramax
All airlines should cancel MAX orders. After watching the CEO defend their
position in the Q2 shareholder’s meeting, he killed the reputation of Boeing
from investors, people and customers. Boeing deserves nothing but financial
punishment and consequences of the people that died in the two crashes.

Edit: Link to the meeting
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=xOQmQpKHVWA](https://youtube.com/watch?v=xOQmQpKHVWA)

~~~
rapsey
This completely unrealistic. CEOs will always defend the company. That is
their job.

~~~
hyperbovine
Their job is to maximize shareholder value. Which could certainly be
accomplished in some cases by forthrightly admitting to wrongdoing. The
problem is that almost invariably this action immediately precedes said CEO
deciding to spend more time with his/her family.

~~~
gamblor956
_Their job is to maximize shareholder value._

This is false. A CEO's job is to run the company. The Board's job is to
_protect_ a shareholder's investment, which does not mean maximizing it.

The lie that a CEO's job is to maximize shareholder's value didn't become a
popular meme until CEOs were suddenly awarded large stock compensation grants
during the Reagan era, and is entirely about CEOs maximizing their personal
holdings to the detriment of every other shareholder.

~~~
lonelappde
This is wrong. CEOs have wide latitude to decide _how_ to maximize value, and
how to measure value, but that is still their job.

CEOs raiding short term coffers is a different issue.

------
_ph_
The problem is, most airlines who ordered or are considering to order the 737
MAX have not much choice. The only real competitor is Airbus. But not only
does Airbus alreay have filled order books, so cannot deliver any additional
orders in a reasonable time frame, but also this would move the market into a
near-monopoly, something that airlines are trying to avoid strongly, as that
would remove their negotiation powers with the manufacturer.

This shows, that a duopoly can be as bad as a monopoly and can degenerate into
one quickly. Consequently, it should be avoided as much as possible. Merging
Boeing with McDonnell Douglas was a big mistake by these events. As was, not
to develop a successor to the 737 even long before the MAX development
started. After 40 years, tweaking a very successfull design isn't enough any
more, there should be a proper successor.

Unless some more large flaws are discovered, the 737 MAX won't be cancelled
and it will be bought. The market is trapped. Airlines, who operate on 737
only will have to change their operations soon, as the MAX can be only a gap-
filler now. But on short notice there is no other possible replacement
available. Boeing will certainly start a replacment design soon, but that
won't arrive till the late 20ies. This might of course be the opening for new
aircraft companies to enter the market, e.g. Chineese companies or Japanese.

~~~
ethbro
In the back and forth, one thing I haven't heard much on is what could have
been done to result in a clean-sheet design.

The timeline looks like Boeing was publicly leaning towards a clean sheet
redesign until the end of 2011. Then, seemingly out of the blue, American made
this announcement on 7/20/2011.

"As part of the Boeing agreement, American will take delivery of 100 aircraft
from Boeing's current 737NG family starting in 2013, including three 737-800
options that had been exercised as of July 1, 2011. _American also intends to
order 100 of Boeing 's expected new evolution of the 737NG, with a new engine
that would offer even more significant fuel-efficiency gains over today's
models. American is pleased to be the first airline to commit to Boeing's new
737 family offering, which is expected to provide a new level of economic
efficiency and operational performance, pending final confirmation of the
program by Boeing. This airplane would be powered by CFM International's
LEAP-X engine."_

[http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2011/AMR-Corporation-
An...](http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2011/AMR-Corporation-Announces-
Largest-Aircraft-Order-In-History-With-Boeing-And-
Airbus-07202011/default.aspx)

Afterwards, Boeing fairly quickly announces they'll be offering an up-engined
737 NG design.

Presumably the issues were noted at some point in the development process
(~2013?).

At that point... the FAA should have been the one pointing out development
issues would cause serious regulatory problems? Afaik, they don't have the
funding or personnel for that level of design integration.

And like agile, the farther down the road after that decision we get, the more
money is at risk and the more constrained options are.

So the answer here seems like deeper and earlier regulator involvement in the
development phase?

I'm honestly having difficulty coming up with a plausible sequence of events
that would have resulted in a different outcome. When Airbus released the
A320neo mid-development cycle for Boeing, the die seemed cast.

~~~
_ph_
Yes, I agree. What I meant was, considering that the 737 was designed in the
60ies, they should have a successor development started much much earlier
(like 2000). Even with the predecessor of the MAX they were running into
ground clearing issues leading to its asymmetric engine housings.

------
_trampeltier
Last week Boeing announced that it would give $100m to help families affected
by the two crashes.

Thats not even 300k per died person. And if you search for the price for an
737Max, you guess what it's about 100m per plane ..

~~~
FabHK
In Indonesia, minimum wage is around USD 1500 annually, and not everyone gets
that. Fresh grads in white-collar jobs might get maybe USD 3000 per year, or
USD 5000 in the capital. If you make 5 digits you're doing well, like USD 25k
per annum for a data scientist or 60k for a head of IT (those would be
exceptional top jobs there, mind you). [1]

So, for the median individual in Indonesia it's several decades worth of
salary, and it will help the affected families a lot. I assume that the
situation in Ethiopia is not too different.

[1] [https://www.robertwalters.co.id/content/dam/robert-
walters/g...](https://www.robertwalters.co.id/content/dam/robert-
walters/global/files/salary-survey/salary-survey-2019-south-east-asia-greater-
china.pdf)

------
dmix
> Last month IAG said it intended to buy 200 Boeing 737 Max aircraft.

So they lost an order of 20 planes but recently signed an order for 200?

Not all bad news.

Regardless it’s good to see real economic consequences being suffered by a
company typically anointed for success by the US gov.

~~~
raverbashing
I think it's not an order per se, but a letter of intent.

I'm sure it contains some pretty good discounts and opt-outs in case Boeing
cannot fulfill their Max obligations.

~~~
gsnedders
And note IAG currently has a _lot_ of A320s and no 737s: getting the IAG order
would be a _big_ deal, but it could equally just be IAG trying to get into a
stronger negotiating position with Airbus.

~~~
berti
> but it could equally just be IAG trying to get into a stronger negotiating
> position with Airbus.

And Airbus are negotiating from a much stronger position than they were a year
ago. Selling a plane that is actually airworthy does that for you.

------
seldonnn
Less than a months production. For context, Boeing has over 7 years of MAX
production in backlog.

------
forgotmypw3
It's either Boeing loses orders or airlines lose the orders. Knowing what I've
learned about the 737 just from reading the news and analysis here, I wouldn't
want to get on one for a few years after it goes back into flying.

~~~
dylan604
That totally depends on what the fix for the Max becomes. If it is something
along the lines of all planes receive the optional equipment as well as
software updates that takes into consideration that the human is constantly
countering the decisions software makes the human wins, then I'd be okay with
it. As it is, you know that all Max pilots have become or are becoming very
familiar with how to disable MCAS.

~~~
forgotmypw3
How much testing will the fix undergo before being deployed?

How much testing will each fixed plane undergo before the first passenger
flight?

------
burtonator
Good. They deserve to lose it... Let the market correct.

------
open-source-ux
VOX has a good explainer video on what caused the 737 Max to crash twice for
anyone who doesn't know the details. Essentially, Boeing installed sensors and
software to automatically push the plane nose down if the plane angle was too
steep as it ascended. This software/sensor combination is implicated as the
cause of the recent crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia.

 _The real reason Boeing 's new plane crashed twice_:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY)

~~~
ethbro
At this point, I think everyone on HN who doesn't specifically block Boeing
articles is aware of the reason.

------
rootusrootus
Probably politics more than anything to do with the crashes.

~~~
chki
What do you mean by "politics"?

~~~
rootusrootus
The airline in question is controlled by the government of Saudi Arabia.

~~~
chki
That's not really an answer to the question.

