Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/europe-says-737-max-won-t-fly-until-its-design-review-complete

by prmph • 7 years ago

363 391 7 years ago

hu3• 7 years ago

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.

Aromasin• 7 years ago

Things are certainly looking bullish for Airbus in the aftermath of this.

mimixco• 7 years ago

And they just extended the range of the A220.

jpkeisala• 7 years ago

I think they will need to go easy on this in order to avoid White House getting involved.

philjohn3• 7 years ago

There was an interesting Mentour Pilot about this, essentially the lead time for a new airplane order is in the order of years, and there are other costs as well. If you've built your business around one specific type of jet it's costly to move to the competitors, which is why the "no type rating change" was so important for the max.

Perhaps for future large orders this may be a boon for Airbus, but that would be in the longer medium term, and a lot can happen between then and now.

As it is, having two large companies trading blows is better than one dominating the market, so I hope Boeing are humbled, have a root and branch overhaul of how they conduct business, and shareholders take a hit, but that they survive.

CaptainZapp3• 7 years ago

I'm not sure.

First of all they will not capitalize on this. Airlines as well as manufacturers never use (lack of) security with a competitor as a marketing argument.

Moreover. Order books for the main competitor, The A320NEO and derivatives, are full until something like 2025.

It's possible that it's an advantage for the A220 (Bombardier C series) as some commenter pointed out. Which, incidentally, is a fantastic passenger experience for short - to medium haul flights.

ulfw11• 7 years ago

I wish Boeing would rather FINALLY do the right thing, take their billion dollar earnings and putting it into R&D to build a new, modern 2020s design aircraft into the sky for the next decades rather than it's umpteenth warm-up of their 1960s design.

hef198983• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

PedroBatista2• 7 years ago

After 346 people died and what we know now, it's obvious that the FAA is not a trusted partner.

magduf12• 7 years ago

Yes, it necessarily IS a good thing for cooperation to be reduced: the FAA has proven that it cannot be trusted at all for airplane certification. The EU needs to stop trusting the US for anything at all, and start doing more for itself.

When the US elected Trump, that should have been the signal that the US could no longer be relied on. Of course, there were many signs and problems before (like when W. Bush was elected and started 2 wars), but Trump being elected should have been the obvious last straw.

jacquesm3• 7 years ago

The FAA would lead and the rest of the world would follow. This is now history.

_bxg13• 7 years ago

I think even more so than Boeing itself, people's confidence in the FAA has been completely shattered. Personally I'm not going to take their word anymore for the safety of the planes I fly on; I'll be looking at the EASA's rulings.

TheArcane• 7 years ago

HN is traditionally quite pro-US to the point that many here were defending Boeing during the 737 Max fiasco. Not to mentions the vitriol against the EU when it fined American tech giants.

yaseer• 7 years ago

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?

the_dege• 7 years ago

Normal passengers won't even notice that they are flying in a 747 max.

xiphias2• 7 years ago

People are irrationally careful when it comes to flying. And in this case even a rational person wouldn't fly a 737 Max. I'm sure the demand problem will be felt by the airlines.

objektif2• 7 years ago

There are now multiple apps that tell you which model of aircraft you are booking.

__m• 7 years ago

Well, i am a normal passenger and wouldn't fly in one in the first place. I could tell the difference by the feeling of plunging from thousands of feet into the ground, it's very subtle, but even noticeable by the layman

swarnie_2• 7 years ago

You can look up the plane your due to fly on online using the flight number.

marsRoverDev• 7 years ago

Passengers as a whole don't have any idea what is going on and have the memory of an amnesiac goldfish.

They also don't have the ability to differentiate between planes in general, so this is probably just as likely to affect their perceptions of the A320.

oldjokes2• 7 years ago

This is completely wrong, and there is plenty of data that says so. Especially when you start talking about business and frequent travelers, they are notoriously picky and will cancel flights based on a plane class or even when a specific aircraft usually does the route.

https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-want-to-fly-b...

"If you had a flight on a Boeing 737 Max next week, and the FAA decided to clear the aircraft for flight, given the issues the plane has experienced, what would you do?

53.1% of respondents said they would reschedule. Of those, the survey found that 18.7% of respondents would reschedule their flight only if it didn't require a fee. Another 4.4% of respondents said they would pay to reschedule their flight up to a certain monetary fee, which they then typed in. A full 30% of people would cancel or reschedule their flights, regardless of the cost to them"

ulfw11• 7 years ago

How do you know this is true?

SomeHacker444• 7 years ago

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.

mft_• 7 years ago

I'd agree with you... but on some routes (note I'm in Europe) there is only one carrier, and only 1-2 flights per day. So that choice could mean the difference between flying and not flying. With such stark choices, I suspect convenience and/or necessity would win out quite quickly.

darrenf• 7 years ago

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

That's as maybe, but is far from guaranteed to remain as-is - and how many people maintain an ExpertFlyer membership and enter their itinerary for aircraft change alerts? Unless a seat changes†, IME most airlines don't proactively send out change alerts to passengers already booked when one aircraft is swapped for another. Furthermore I would sincerely doubt anyone's ability to extract a refund because the airline changed to a plane they weren't willing to board.

† and even then it isn't guaranteed, and rarely do I notice the alerts highlighting the reason being an aircraft change

riffraff• 7 years ago

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.

hlandau• 7 years ago

Hold on a minute. Though the 737 MAX issues were caused by the desire to keep the same type rating, making the 737 MAX have a new type rating at this point won't solve the issue.

The 737 MAX needed to retain the unusual fuselage design of the 737 to retain the type rating, leading to the unusual positioning of the new, larger engines, leading to MCAS.

Even if they gave the 737 MAX a new type rating at this point, the fuselage would still be the same shape as a 737 with the engine positioning driving the need for MCAS.

The only way to get rid of the need for MCAS at this point, AFAICT, would be to create a new fuselage which doesn't inherit the historical baggage of the 737 (which was designed to support airstairs). That would be a whole new plane, not just a new rating. The 737 MAXes built so far would be scrap.

It's been remarked before, but if Boeing hadn't been so determined to keep the same type rating, reviving the 757 might have made more sense.

the_mitsuhiko2• 7 years ago

I will not fly the 737 MAX unless and until it has its own type certificate

then you will never be able to fly one. It cannot get its own type certificate.

getaclue• 7 years ago

we are about to fly soon and literally the first thing I’ve thought (and my SO) was I hope it’s not this plane

swarnie_2• 7 years ago

Did exactly the same thing when i went away a few months back, my trip just after the second accident but not before the grounding i believe. Not sure what the options are if you get stuck on a plane you don't exactly want to be on.

My trip just after the second accident but not before teh grounding.

matwood• 7 years ago

Airlines like Delta show very clearly what type of plane you're supposed to be on. Of course that could change because of maintenance issues, but it is easy to check at least what is scheduled.

Angostura• 7 years ago

I'm not sure I've ever been told what type of plane I'm flying in when I book - are you typically told?

cr1895• 7 years ago

I can always see the type of aircraft when booking a flight with KLM. I don't know if it's typical though.

philjohn3• 7 years ago

BA tell you the model of plane that's scheduled when booking.

I've actually selected a different flight a few hours after another so I would be on an A380 vs 747 because two hours extra waiting to come home is worth it for the comfort on a longer flight, and feeling more refreshed the other end, especially with a long drive back from the airport waiting for me.

alkonaut5• 7 years ago

Depends on when you book and what fleet they have. The exact plane (individual) isn't assigned to your flight by the scheduling software at the booking date, if you book months in advance. It's a guess in that case, and it can change up to hours before the flight. So there is nothing that guarantees that the model specified on your booking will actually be used.

ulfw11• 7 years ago

Nobody is being 'told'. But every booking system I've ever used, whether it's airline-direct or an agreggator shows aircraft model.

Flightaware and others show it too if you just search for the flight number

jzwinck• 7 years ago

It would be unethical to do so explicitly ("Airline kills poor people"). It could happen automatically due to demand based pricing, but many people don't know the difference and would price the risk at zero. So I think it's "Mostly no."

alkonaut5• 7 years ago

I'll have no problem flying in one as soon as the relevant authorities deem it safe enough. If I don't trust relevant authorities on what is safe and what isn't - why would I trust them when they say the next plane is safe?

Also, since you can't know which flights are using which planes (usually), many carriers use thes planes interchangably with non-MAX (737-800s), and you can't use the choice of plane as a reason to get a refund on your ticket, avoiding these planes is likely expensive. You need to fly another route, pick an airline that isn't the cheapest for the leg you are flying and so on. I mean I'm as scared of crashing as the next guy but I'm not "5% more expensive trip"-scared.

ulfw11• 7 years ago

The same "authorities" who told you before they were safe to fly?

You have so much believe in authorities that even if proven they didn't do their job, you still trust in them with your life?

mmrezaie• 7 years ago

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!?

icegreentea22• 7 years ago

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...

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.

gsnedders4• 7 years ago

on the MAX the wing tips split into two (above and below the main wing), on all previous 737s, the wingtips only curve up

However there are aftermarket wingtips for the 737NG (737-600/700/800/900) which are similarly split that a number of major operators have fitted.

ejolto• 7 years ago

Boeing also has the model number on a plate in the doorway. Of course if you can read it, you've already boarded.

xaqfox• 7 years ago

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

rootusrootus10• 7 years ago

I was plane spotting two days ago and saw a half dozen 737NGs with split wingtips.

hackandtrip• 7 years ago

I think it's unlikely that it was a 737-MAX, Norwegian should have just 18 737-MAX and more than 110 737-800. Source: https://media.uk.norwegian.com/pressreleases/update-on-the-t...

alkonaut5• 7 years ago

Norwegians 15 737-MAX8 are of course still grounded. No airline is "cheating" and flying with a grounded plane.

The planes are very similar (which is the whole selling point). That's why they can use the same safety instructions, which is probably where you saw the text "737-800/737 MAX8" printed. As others said, they are most easily told apart by the different look of their wing tips.

MobileVet2• 7 years ago

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.

nocturnial4• 7 years ago

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.

ghevshoo• 7 years ago

Not sure what contacts you are talking about, but the civil lawsuits have started to roll in... https://in.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airplane-lawsuit/fre...

StreamBright4• 7 years ago

If they cannot be held accountable in the legal sense they might in the financial sense. Stopping 737MAX sales would hinder their operations quite a bit.

MobileVet2• 7 years ago

By forcing them to fully certify the MAX, they will take a massive hit in sales and further losses in legal suits from the airlines that have already purchased planes they can't fly.

This will also add a serious line item to the various civil lawsuits regarding the loss of life as a government level entity has now said 'this was a different plane, Boeing lied.' It will be extremely hard for Boeing defense attorneys and likely lead to triplicate damages settlements.

village-idiot6• 7 years ago

First, recertification will not be cheap.

Second, it will hurt sales. No airline wants to buy a plane they can’t fly, but they also don’t want to buy more old planes that use more fuel. My bet is that companies like Southwest will half all orders and see what happens.

Finally, it’ll drive companies that straddle the Boeing airbus decide deeper into Airbus’ arms.

wongarsu• 7 years ago

Even if they manage to dodge civil liability (which is unlikely), a number of nations could bring criminal charges for the deaths caused by the two crashes. In addition most major nations have the option to bring criminal charges against Boeing for endangering the lives of their citizens.

rossdavidh2• 7 years ago

Really, all you need is for the CEO and perhaps the board of directors to lose their jobs. Sure, they'd get golden parachutes and it wouldn't seem sufficient, but people in positions of power don't like losing their position. If you did that, it would be sufficient to make the next CEO (and board) think twice about doing something similar.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be happening.

peteretep3• 7 years ago

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.

nutjob22• 7 years ago

If they have made agreements with victims that means they have been held accountable. Unless they've been represented poorly, these people likely are better off to the tune of well over a million dollars each. Of course they are also dead.

tzhenghao• 7 years ago

You reminded me of the Lauda Air Flight 004 crash, and Niki Lauda pushing Boeing for an explanation [1]. RIP Niki Lauda

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Lauda's_v...

lagadu2• 7 years ago

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

nocturnial4• 7 years ago

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

anoncake8• 7 years ago

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.

oaiey2• 7 years ago

And as a German, I wonder how exactly are these processes are done in Airbus?

radcon• 7 years ago

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.

linuxftw5• 7 years ago

Yes, I am. It's not a 'just need to update MCAS' situation IMO, that's a Boeing talking point. We don't know how badly the MCAS is needed and how dangerous the plane is if it fails, and their current solution is to make it more failure prone (read from two sources and disable upon >x disagree).

apacheCamel• 7 years ago

I feel the same way. This says a lot about the 737-Max but it also says a ton about the company. This whole thing has shed a light on Boeing that I personally have a hard time overlooking. I know my opinion matters little in the grand scheme of things, but it doesn't seem like many people are in the same boat as me.

NikolaeVarius4• 7 years ago

Nope, risks are insignificant. It's extremely irrational to be scared to fly on Boeing.

ddalex3• 7 years ago

LOL what? It's at least 4 orders of magnitude more risky to fly 737 MAX compared to Airbus A320 (counting deaths per 100k takeoffs). 4 orders of magnitude are not irrational.

adrr2• 7 years ago

Out 300 Boeing Max delivered since it was release in 2016, there has been 2 full hull losses with full loss of life. I bet if you do the numbers it is the most dangerous way of traveling. Tesla gets shit on for autopilot and it’s killed 4 people but has 100s of thousand of cars on the road with autopilot.

StreamBright4• 7 years ago

There is the comment below about the 4 order of magnitude difference between A320 vs. 737MAX. And there is confirmation bias that can save your life.

anoncake8• 7 years ago

You aren't one of those who say people should “vote with their wallets”, are you?

wycy• 7 years ago

I would be extremely hesitant to ever fly on a 737 MAX again because, even when MCAS is fixed, software is being used to fix a fundamental physics problem. I'd fly on other Boeing planes without worry, though.

ulfw11• 7 years ago

The fix for the 787s Lithium battery problems wasn't a whole lot better. Remember those exploding left and right and the 787 fleet grounded?

The fix wasn't to reengineer the large amount of electrical systems, lack of bleed air or use of different batteries.

The fix was to put them in a stronger container with a hole in it so they can vent outside when they inevitably blow up again.

That has worked well. So far.

Kind of - https://aeronauticsonline.com/united-787-battery-failure-pro...

foldr13• 7 years ago

This is not the case. The 737 MAX has different handling characteristics to a regular 737, but there is nothing inherently unsafe about those handling characteristics. The purpose of MCAS was just to prevent the need for pilots to recertify by masking the difference.

sealthedeal2• 7 years ago

100% agree. Anytime you are using software to hide a larger problem, that is a huge red flag.

xvf222• 7 years ago

Boeing has a lot of work to do to restore their image and I will avoid the MAX where possible. They seem to have been on a mission to cut back on expenses without the necessary review and supervision which is worrying. I'd prefer they start caring a bit more about "the box" again. [0]

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-09/former-bo...

ThinkBeat• 7 years ago

It can be hard to avoid since carriers reasonably often change what aircrafts they use after the tickets are sold.

Norwegian Air Shuttle has been in a lot of trouble over that when they sold tickets promising Dreamliner but instead leased in a much older airplane to fly that trip. (well they have done it multiple times on different trips)

s_dev• 7 years ago

Flying -- even accounting for all the 737 Max crashes is still statistically by far the safest form of travel per unit of distance travelled -- the 737 Max is a blip just like 9/11.

bilbo0s4• 7 years ago

Flying is safe. No question.

And you can make it that much more safe by doing yourself a favor and avoiding the 737 MAX.

StreamBright4• 7 years ago

Nobody is arguing about flying vs no flying. This thread about 737MAX safety.

thinkloop2• 7 years ago

Unit of distance is not the correct measure to use for safety because it skews heavily towards speed. The fastest means of transport will almost always look the safest. Consider if planes doubled their speed overnight (which they can, it's just a matter of gas/costs) and crashes remained the same - did they instantly become twice as safe? Definitely not, there is still the fixed risks of takeoff, landing, and being in the air for even a second, etc. The additional miles are almost free in terms of risk, but eat away a lot at the risk metric.

The better measure is time: deaths per hour traveled. And by that measure buses are actually safest, followed by rail, then air [1][2]. Cars are still 4x more dangerous, but that's much less stark than the common wisdom. And even that is misleading because with cars specifically, there is much more variability of drivers, car quality, maintenance, etc. If you are sober, responsible, educated, with a well maintained car, etc. your odds are significantly lower. Think drunk drivers who only kill themselves in accidents (this is a significant portion of car deaths).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety

[2] http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_7_1_July_2015/15.p...

drivebyops• 7 years ago

The statistics for this include motorcycles. I would really like to see one for only vehicles.

sjg007• 7 years ago

They've had similar issues before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

jussij• 7 years ago

So past history tells us the 737 was marred by multiple fatal crashes cashed by bad rudder design.

Recent history tells us the 737-MAX has also been marred with some serious design issues relating to it's MCAS system, which have resulted in multiple fatal crashes.

That history suggests passengers should be wary of boarding a 737-MAX any time soon.

I for one will give it a few years before taking up that boarding pass.

dver• 7 years ago

767 Thrust reverser as well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004

taneq• 7 years ago

I must admit, every time I've flown recently on a 737 I've nervously checked the information card to check the exact model. I think all of our local airlines run 737-800s though.

fmajid2• 7 years ago

No reason to be nervous, all 737 MAX are grounded worldwide.

I doubt they will be certified to fly without adding the triple redundant AOA sensors the A320neo has and that should have been included from the very beginning. If the FAA certified the 737 MAX without a mandatory upgrade (doubtful, given the glare of publicity), then yes, I'd be worried.

StreamBright4• 7 years ago

I won't be flying on a 737MAX ever. If I ever come into a situation that it would be an option I will email the airliner and let them know that there is no way I will use their service with such an aircraft. I was also thinking about creating a boycott737max.com website.

village-idiot6• 7 years ago

I’m okay flying on the older 737s. Those are proven enough that we know what they’ll do; the biggest risk for those older planes is the safety culture for the airline, not Boeing.

Any of their newer stuff? No way.

magduf12• 7 years ago

I have no doubt the older 737s are safe, but they're still crappy planes to fly on as a passenger. Given similar cost, I'll pick an Airbus instead. It's like taking a road trip in a 1967 Mustang vs. and car from 2015. Even if you don't have any incidents, the 1967 car is going to be a pretty lousy experience as far as passenger comfort, noise, and ride quality.

ubermonkey2• 7 years ago

I think you're absolutely right. The approach on the MAX is horrifying.

But airplane tech moves kind of slowly, no? Non-MAX 737s can't really change, and so are as safe today as they were 6 month or 6 years ago. The MAX debacle makes me SUPER SUPER leery of any new airframe, though.

robjan• 7 years ago

The problem with the MAX was that it's a new revision of an ancient airframe. A completely new design would go through way more testing than did the MAX.

magduf12• 7 years ago

The non-MAX 737s are still shitty planes to fly on. It's an ancient airframe: it's cramped, it's noisy, it just sucks. And it's a fuel hog too (which is why they made the MAX version).

The competing aircraft are all much newer and nicer. The only reason anyone was buying the MAX was 1) because they had already bought into Boeing and the 737 and it's cheaper to just get a 737MAX which doesn't require any pilot retraining (thanks to keeping the MCAS a secret), and 2) because Boeing was selling them really cheap (possibly "dumping") to compete against Airbus.

retSava2• 7 years ago

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.

CaptainZapp3• 7 years ago

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.

They wouldn't even ground the fleet if death and destruction occurs. Like they didn't do after the Lion Air crash.

Even after the Ethiopian plane they tried hell and high water, including a call to the president, to not have the plane grounded.

It's clear that to Boeing, their numbers are more important than lives.

Absolutely. Nicely demonstrated by lies, deflections, omissions and still smearing everybody else but themselves after killing more than 300 people by bad design and greed.

atonse• 7 years ago

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.

chr1• 7 years ago

It's clear that to Boeing, their numbers are more important than lives.

That would not be bad by itself. It is only important that regulators and customers make sure that this leaves really big dent in their numbers.

Causality12• 7 years ago

MCAS relied on a single AoA sensor for a plane that holds 300 people. Military cargo planes a tenth the capacity have three of them. Boeing's design philosophy is terrifying.

badpun• 7 years ago

It's clear that to Boeing, their numbers are more important than lives.

BTW (I'm not folowing this very closely) is there already, or will there be a criminal investigation?

yeahitslikethat• 7 years ago

I take away that they do NOT put lives above numbers. Revisit the ford pinto case.

They knew there were problems with the design and flew the planes any way.

LoSboccacc4• 7 years ago

on a Boeing plane

yes but limited to -MAX

the others have a good track record and for some reason they seem to takeoff and land smoother, even if probably it's selection bias due to the high correlation of [airline, plane, destination] variables.

gsich• 7 years ago

Reminds me of Niki Lauda, someone posted this yesterday:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Lauda's_v...

gingabriska• 7 years ago

It could be possible that it's mostly developer pay, we all know big old companies don't pay software developers much and now most talented ones are either working for companies who pay a lot like Google and FB or startups which offer lot of equity and recognition.

randolando• 7 years ago

Yes, and not just a Boeing plane. The happenings around the MAX make me reluctant to fly on new aircraft in general.

As I understand, parts of the certification process had been outsourced by the FAA to 3rd parties with monetary incentive to accelerate approvals and downplay safety critical issues.

That just seems to be asking for trouble and a step backwards in vetting the safety of new aircraft designs.

bdamm2• 7 years ago

There's a movement towards industry building standards around how to meet the general requirements that aircraft need to meet.

However, that's a step back from the previous approach, where fundamental architecture concepts are needlessly cooked into the airframe regulations. As a simple example, under the previous approach, the law stated that light sport aircraft needed a reciprocating engine, and that reciprocating engine must meet XYZ standards. However that means you couldn't certify and sell an electric LSA in the United States. To certify such an aircraft would have required literally an act of congress.

Overall, this was generally holding back the industry a great deal. The new rules have been in place for a couple of years now (they came into effect just at the end of the Obama administration) and the result has been an enormous improvement in technology available to certified aircraft owners and designers.

So personally I don't think it is a step backwards. The MCAS/CG issue is unfortunate, but it's also part of an industry-wide adjustment that is in general leading to better airplanes.

thefounder• 7 years ago

I wouldn't be surprised to see another MAX going down soon after it starts flying again. Let the others test/try the updates first...

PedroBatista2• 7 years ago

Even more now, because now it's mainstream knowledge of how rotten the whole thing is.

The more you scratch the more the Boeing-FAA relationship stinks. The way Boeing is dealing with this, they way FAA "trusts" Boeing.

Deep down we know most of them don't care much about the people who fly on their planes, but damn seeing it how exactly that plays out is terrifying.

FabHK10• 7 years ago

Deep down we know most of them don't care much about the people who fly on their planes

Do you think most Boeing employees only fly Airbus?

computerex9• 7 years ago

Tell me about it. In my last flight when the pilot said we are flying in a Boeing 737 I got the heebie jeebies, despite flying in that plane more times than I can count.

ummonk• 7 years ago

Don't mind any of the planes that aren't 737-Max or 787. Definitely reluctant to fly 737-Max anytime soon even after it has been approved. As for the 787, while I have a little bit of hesitancy, I figure it's been around long enough that we at least know it is safer than driving a car, so probably okay to ride in it, although it might not be as safe as other planes.

joelrunyon• 7 years ago

What's wrong with 787s?

Obi_Juan_Kenobi• 7 years ago

I'll roll the dice to get that sweet, sweet 6000 ft. cabin pressure on the 787.

rbanffy4• 7 years ago

I'm not really worried. I prefer the A320 Neo because it's quieter and more comfortable, but the odds of dying due to an airplane accident are vanishingly small.

Even if my chances of dying on a 737 MAX are much higher than dying on a tried and true A340, they are probably around the same as me dying from pancreatic cancer and I don't get my pancreas checked regularly.

Waterluvian• 7 years ago

I hear you and I'm mostly just using your comment to share my thoughts. I've learned not to treat the statistics because that doesn't work at the human level.

Fear, anxiety, apprehension, are legitimate human conditions regardless of how irrational they are. And regardless of what the numbers say, there's an effective treatment available: filter flights by plane type.

I personally don't care. But my wife does, and therefore I do care after all.

Took me too many years to learn this fact about coexisting with others: addressing how they feel is almost always easier than trying to convince them not to feel that way.

snarf212• 7 years ago

You are not wrong but you getting pancreatic cancer is a largely random event based on factors too numerous to name and define. Boeing specifically cut corners to not retrain pilots on the MAX and lied so they could give it the same rating.

A better analogy would be if you found out your favorite drink gave you a 100x greater chance of getting pancreatic cancer, would you stop drinking it? (Note: the odds of you getting pancreatic cancer on the whole are still immeasurably small even at 100x) What if you found out this new drink recipe never went through any safety testing but the company claimed it was basically the same as the old tested drink you enjoyed previously from the same company?

pcurve• 7 years ago

Yeah. If I had a choice between flying between the two with all other things being equal I will fly on Neo. I might pay a small premium for it. Like a few more bucks just because it's more comfortable.

ddingus• 7 years ago

Maybe. Not right now as we've grounded the problem child. There are lots of great airplanes doing their job right now.

I'm reluctant to continue the self regulation. The EU is doing it's own design review.

Awesome. They will find a lot of ugly, and some of that will be debatable.

Have those debates.

All companies involved will see some costs. But, they will also see opportunity as they work through this stuff.

We benefit.

Theodores• 7 years ago

"It's no big deal, they just need to update the MCAS software"

I think they just need to update the pricing structure.

Let the MAX fly as is but just halve the ticket prices, use cabin crew that are coming close to retirement (or have failed performance reviews), make the routes be in developing countries/states and keep the profits rolling in.

I am joking, however, if Boeing sold medicines, pesticides, lead paint, food additives or any number of other things deemed deadly in the home market then it could be exported overseas to be sold at a profit.

Even though Boeing, the FAA and Trump can be criticised for the handling of the 737 Max, the wider international community has done good, we haven't got these shambolic planes relegated to poorer parts of the world where lives are cheap.

_bxg13• 7 years ago

Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to boycott them altogether, at least in the U.S.

If any billionaires out there were considering starting a company in the commercial airliner market, now would be an opportune moment...

dingaling• 7 years ago

Jet Blue only fly Airbus and Embraer types

Spirit and Frontier are all-Airbus

FabHK10• 7 years ago

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

Well, 737 MAX and 787, for me. The 777 is rock solid, as far as I can tell - and it was designed before the significant changes at Boeing and FAA.

linuxftw5• 7 years ago

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.

ulfw11• 7 years ago

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

bilbo0s4• 7 years ago

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.

ulfw11• 7 years ago

Unfathomable for me either and reeking of utter corruption.

I could ALMOST understand it if they would do it in the medical field because there are so many companies small and large working in the field. But no, the FDA is indeed stringent and thorough.

But airplane manufacturing in the US? Hello? How many aircraft do they have to verify? It's not like there's 100s of manufacturers releasing 100s of plane designs.

The 787 and 737max were the only ones released in the last decade. And both were partly self-certified!

seren• 7 years ago

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.

erentz• 7 years ago

You appear to me making a mistake thinking your particular experience with your medical imaging device is normal. A lot of very dodgy medical devices such as cobalt hips and fallopian tube implants and surgical meshes have been approved with terrible oversight from the FDA causing unbelievable harm to people. The FDA is definitely far too lax (maybe fairer to say captured by industry) in a lot of areas they are supposed to regulate.

ShinTakuya• 7 years ago

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.

oaiey2• 7 years ago

Yeah. So business as usual then. When it comes to Airbus and Boing there is nothing unpolitical.

But as a contra Point: there are tons of Max operators in the EU as well.

ernesth• 7 years ago

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

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

leemailll• 7 years ago

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

_bxg13• 7 years ago

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

princekolt• 7 years ago

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.

rootusrootus10• 7 years ago

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.

DumbUser123• 7 years ago

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

sealthedeal2• 7 years ago

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.

rootusrootus10• 7 years ago

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...

slenk2• 7 years ago

We do?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19443925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17991905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16808171

jacquesm3• 7 years ago

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

user5994461• 7 years ago

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

skookumchuck3• 7 years ago

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

mtgx• 7 years ago

What the FAA should have done, too.

munk-a8• 7 years ago

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

rajacombinator• 7 years ago

Jail time for execs is the only solution that matters.

Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

Related Stories